Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
RE: Harper says he'll pro
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
The law clearly states, and the Liberals, NDP and BQ have all made it very clear, that churches will not be forced to perform any marriages that they don't want to. If the law isn't strong enough then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect the religious freedom rights of the churches.
All this talk about the churches being forced to perform same sex marriages under human rights legislation is nothing but a scare tactic by those who would force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, Jay.
Well I am some what familiar with the law, and I believe they would have to either change the Ontario Human rights Code or as you suggested use the NWC in the Charter. Keep in mind the NWC in the Charter must be reviewed every 5 years, so the former will have to be done.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
Well I am some what familiar with the law, and I believe they would have to either change the Ontario Human rights Code or as you suggested use the NWC in the Charter. Keep in mind the NWC in the Charter must be reviewed every 5 years, so the former will have to be done.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
Well I am some what familiar with the law, and I believe they would have to either change the Ontario Human rights Code or as you suggested use the NWC in the Charter. Keep in mind the NWC in the Charter must be reviewed every 5 years, so the former will have to be done.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
As for scare tactics, well I believe this is a very legitimate legal concern.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
Like I said...nothing but a scare tactic.
It's funny, I've watched debate after debate about this on CPAC and NewsWorld and the only people concerned about this are those affilliated with right-wing religious groups.
Look at it this way though...If a Muslim and a Jew decide they want to get married in a Catholic church, the priest has every right to say no under the current law because they do not conform to to the standards of the Catholic religion.
Same sex marriage is no different. It does not conform to the teachings of the church and therefore the church does not have to perform the ceremony.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
RE: Harper says he'll pro
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
Why should anything be sacred? We're talking about non-faith-based marriages, after all.
This morning on CBC Radio 1 they had yet another man (another far-right Christian btw) saying that gay marriage was going to lead to all sorts of things. He actually used the example of a woman marrying her sister.
Hey...why not? Incest laws are really there to prevent birth defects. That's really not an issue when it comes to same-sex weddings. I think a sister/sister marriage is weird, and I suspect most lesbians do as well, but so what?
The other argument argument against ssm is that it will open the door to polygamy. Again, as long as it's consensual, so what? If it's coercive or forced, that's another issue. Several fundamentalist religions, including some Christian sects, have been known for forced and/or coercive "traditional" marriages though, so that's a separate issue.
If one group of people having less rights than another group is "sacred", I'll take the profane any day.
I distinctly get the impression, listening to some of the religious types (not just Christians either) who oppose gay marriage, that their basic problem is that THEIR rules are not made into EVERYONE's rules. That's what it comes down to. They oppose gay marriage because THEY think it's wrong, and therefore WE should ban it. There's no "logic" there, just self-centredness and arrogance.
You can argue about incest or polygamy all you want but the basic issue is that one religious group doesn't get to set public policy based on their precious book anymore. Nobody's going to be forcing clerics to perform gay marriages at gunpoint. This is about government-recognized marriages so you get to visit your dying partner in hospital even if their homo-hating family don't want you to, etc. I don't know why gays would want a church wedding anyway after being shat upon for centuries by organized religion.
If one group of people having less rights than another group is "sacred", I'll take the profane any day.
I distinctly get the impression, listening to some of the religious types (not just Christians either) who oppose gay marriage, that their basic problem is that THEIR rules are not made into EVERYONE's rules. That's what it comes down to. They oppose gay marriage because THEY think it's wrong, and therefore WE should ban it. There's no "logic" there, just self-centredness and arrogance.
You can argue about incest or polygamy all you want but the basic issue is that one religious group doesn't get to set public policy based on their precious book anymore. Nobody's going to be forcing clerics to perform gay marriages at gunpoint. This is about government-recognized marriages so you get to visit your dying partner in hospital even if their homo-hating family don't want you to, etc. I don't know why gays would want a church wedding anyway after being shat upon for centuries by organized religion.
If one group of people having less rights than another group is "sacred", I'll take the profane any day.
I distinctly get the impression, listening to some of the religious types (not just Christians either) who oppose gay marriage, that their basic problem is that THEIR rules are not made into EVERYONE's rules. That's what it comes down to. They oppose gay marriage because THEY think it's wrong, and therefore WE should ban it. There's no "logic" there, just self-centredness and arrogance.
You can argue about incest or polygamy all you want but the basic issue is that one religious group doesn't get to set public policy based on their precious book anymore. Nobody's going to be forcing clerics to perform gay marriages at gunpoint. This is about government-recognized marriages so you get to visit your dying partner in hospital even if their homo-hating family don't want you to, etc. I don't know why gays would want a church wedding anyway after being shat upon for centuries by organized religion.