In giving a resounding “no” to proposed laws that would have allowed Saskatchewan marriage commissioners to opt out of uniting same-sex couples on religious grounds, the province’s top court was very clear about the potential impact of such legislation.
“It would be a significant step backward if, having won the difficult fight for the right to same-sex civil marriages, gay and lesbian couples could be shunned by the very people charged by the province with solemnizing such unions,” Justice Robert Richards said, authoring Monday’s majority decision for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
So much for freedom or religion and freedom of conscience. Void where prohibited by law.
Indeed. England has shown the way in this regard. Don’t expect that Christians will be able to participate in any social area before long – be it adoption, medical, or social work.
It seems that freedom of religion will be interpreted to mean 1) You can believe whatever you like, and 2) You can engage in whatever ceremonies you prefer – BUT you have to DO what we say.
I would rather go to prison than to stoop to this state sponsored blasphemy. God is taking very careful notes.
Intercessor
One is forced to wonder whether clergy will be the next target in this line of thought. If marriage is in fact civil in nature, then one could argue that clergy represent the law…
Re Archer’s comment: already there has been the suggestion made that where churches decline to celebrate same-sex marriages, the state should remove their right to solemnise weddings – weddings that is, recognised by the state. So as in France couples would have to have two ceremonies, one before a civil commissioner and one in church. My first thought is that this would be another cynical twisting of the knife by secularists. My second thought however is that this would subtly emphasise the fact that Christian marriage is different.
Well, my understanding in France is that largely the church doesn’t do weddings at all. I had a French friend who was an exchange student in high school back in the day, and he was a fairly devout Catholic. He was astonished at the idea that clergy can actually do the whole wedding here. In his home town in France, apparently weddings involve going to the mayor, who does the ceremony, and *maybe* some sort of procession to the church for a blessing. But at least from his High School perspective, the Church did not actually have anything to do with the wedding and the procession to the church was extremely rare, even in the most devout families.
Archer, I am afraid that you are not well informed. In fact I was in France to take a wedding myself in Aquitaine in September. As usual, we had the civil ceremony in the Mairie (the Mayor was a practising Catholic). The civil ceremony consisted mostly of reading clauses from the constitution explaining what marriage was, which incidentally stressed again and again the nurture and upbringing of children. Somehow even perfectly ordinary statements in French sound rather grand. Then we went to church for the wedding ceremony which I conducted in English and French (the groom was English). I visit France most years and I can assure you that many, perhaps most, practising families would include the church ceremony. In fact I can go further than that: the preparation for Catholic church weddings in France is stringent. The bishops have introduced a unique requirement as part of the preparation process: bride and groom have to write a letter to each other explaining what marriage means to them, what they hope for from it, what they bring to it. Now that is thought-provoking, it is not.
I stand corrected. I did not know that. I like that idea of letter writing though. I may try that in my next pre-marital counseling session.
The dual marriage (civil and church) in most of Europe is not new. I know that this was the requirement in Germany at least as far back as the 1960’s.
Marriage is a natural institution. I don’t readily see how Christian marriage is essentially different then secular marriage.
What they write in those letters would be interesting to read. Do you suppose they say that marriage is the opportunity to visit in the hospital or to receive social security benefits, or do they speak about trust, faith, love, loyalty, honor. If the latter, then we can see why the US divides the civil from the sacred – or should, if they would only think about it. The Canadian entry above tells us what happens when the state undertakes to control love and its siblings. larry
Aren’t Canadian “marriage commissioners” employees of the state? If so, then religious objections have no place here.
This may be #13, but if marriage is essentially a spiritual matter, then civil affairs should be dealt with in legislation, marriage dealt with by religion. Do you think that marriage is NOT fundamentally a spiritual affair? Larry