Alberta waves white flag over SSM

[Black Dog]

Alberta backs down on same-sex marriage

Premier Ralph Klein has announced Alberta would reluctantly recognize same-sex marriage, but is adding new legislative protection for anyone who opposes it on moral or religious grounds.

"We will proceed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, much to our chagrin, following proclamation of the federal Civil Marriage Act," Klein said in a press conference in Calgary Tuesday.

"We will develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious," Klein said after meeting with his cabinet.

"No one will be required to advocate, promote or teach about marriage in a way that conflicts with their beliefs."

[CrazyCanuck]

Its nice that Alberta recognizes the fact that not all opponents of SSM are religious nuts. I don't care enough about the issue to examine all the details, so if someone could clarify this for me: Is bill C-38 forcing people to marry same-sex couples if their beliefs against SSM aren't religious?

[Black Dog]

Is bill C-38 forcing people to marry same-sex couples if their beliefs against SSM aren't religious?

I think it does.

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1. For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

C-38 amendment

[PocketRocket]

The link provided by BlackDog (thank you very much) does not seem to show anything that would force someone to perform a wedding ceremony of the same-sex sort.

Already in many churches weddings are not performed for those who are not members of that particular religious sect.

Example; the Catholic Church, or at least many of its parishes, will not perform a wedding ceremony unless both participants are Catholic, or agree to convert to Catholicism.

I ran into this roadblock with my own marriage.

I was born and raised Catholic, and was non-practising at the time.

My bride was raised Protestant, and was also non-practising.

We approached 3 different Catholic churches (mostly to please my mother, may she RIP), and all 3 turned us down.

So, being that a church can already refuse to perform a wedding ceremony based on the tenets of that particular religious institution, I'm sure they will continue to be able to do so based on the premise that homosexuality is a proscribed practice within said religion.

Others, such as Justices of the Peace would probably be able to do the same if each individual could provide credible evidence that performing such a ceremony would be an offense to his/her own religious beliefs.

All that being said, I'm sure that the SSM crowd will not have too much trouble finding someone who is willing to perform a wedding.

After all, wedding ministers charge for their services too, and not all are bound by particularly stern religious beliefs.

Hmmm. There might be a career opportunity here.

Maybe I should dust off the old Bible, and take that mail-in theology course

[Black Dog]

PR I think the question was about someone (ie. justice of the Peace) who refused to perform gay marriages for reasons other than religiious ones. I don't think they have any kind of protection. Nor should they.

[Redneck Yokel]

While it is true Alberta accepted it, what else could we do? We can't use the notwithstanding clause and we can't stop something that isn't in the Provincial jurisdiction. We have our hands tied =p

Fortunately, Klein has already announced plans to put in place legislation to protect anyone (religious or not) that does not want to perform a SSM. Also there is talks of the Provincial government stepping out of marriage all together

[I Miss Trudeau]

Fortunately, Klein has already announced plans to put in place legislation to protect anyone (religious or not) that does not want to perform a SSM.

Any civil servant that is unwilling to do his/her job should be replaced by someone that is.

[Hawk]

Fortunately, Klein has already announced plans to put in place legislation to protect anyone (religious or not) that does not want to perform a SSM.

Any civil servant that is unwilling to do his/her job should be replaced by someone that is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection from people like you that would rather use the government to stomp down the majority in addition to his own personal beliefs.

Or do you suddenly not care about personal beliefs and the importance of them being protected in a free society? Is your society only allowed to be free when it suites your own beliefs? Does that not sound resoundingly elitist?

[Melanie_]

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection from people like you that would rather use the government to stomp down the majority in addition to his own personal beliefs.

Or do you suddenly not care about personal beliefs and the importance of them being protected in a free society? Is your society only allowed to be free when it suites your own beliefs? Does that not sound resoundingly elitist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A civil servant is not representing his or her own beliefs; they are representing the government, and as such must uphold the laws of the land.

[I Miss Trudeau]

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection

Indeed. He/she is free to go and find a job that he/she is actually willing to do.

from people like you that would rather use the government to stomp down the majority in addition to his own personal beliefs.

Stomp down the majority? How on earth do you figure?

Is your society only allowed to be free when it suites your own beliefs?

How is this not free? Look, if you want a job, you have to be willing to do it. No one is free to maintain their job while simultaneously refusing to do it.

Suppose a mormon was hired to work at Starbucks. After being hired, he informs his boss that he will not make or serve any beverage containing caffiene. Now what? The manager has to keep him around, even though he isn't willing to do his job?

Does that not sound resoundingly elitist?

How on earth is making someone do their job in order to maintain their job "elitist?"

[Hawk]

A civil servant is not representing his or her own beliefs; they are representing the government, and as such must uphold the laws of the land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then eliminate all government-funded unions, they could strike.

But you are right, they SHOULD uphold the laws of the land. However are you suggesting the government is always right? Are you suggesting that regardless of your moral obligations you should simply ignore them and do what you think is wrong simply because the government told you so? If not then how far are you willing to go with this? Because I have been studying Russian and German history lately and that exact mentality was at the forfront of both revolutions, that the government knows best and you damn well better toe their line.

[Hawk]

LoL gotta love the dissection of sentences, you do know that is not a very convincing way to put a point across right? Lemme show you why...

Indeed.

Are you implying you agree with communism?

He/she is free to go and find a job

Oh, so now you admit people can get jobs... nice, how kind of you to give them the 'freedom' to go and find a job. Wow, great going dude.

that he/she is actually willing to do.

Willing to do what? I don't understand o.0

Haha, now do you see why it is pathetic to tear apart sentences? Because 1) it lengthens the reply in a manner that is not needed and 2) because you can lose focus on what is even being discussed... not to mention you can draw in any conclusion you want, not the one the poster had.

Now the ACTUAL reply to that 'point' is this.

Where in the civil servants job description does it say 'you must do everything we tell you, because you are a robot and must now ignore your concience for the good of the government.'?

Stomp down the majority? How on earth do you figure?

See? You cut my sentence in half... tsk tsk.

1% < 99%. That is my only answer.

How is this not free? Look, if you want a job, you have to be willing to do it. No one is free to maintain their job while simultaneously refusing to do it.

Of course not, that is why they will continue to do their jobs, just not in a manner that violates their freedoms. At least not in Alberta =)

Suppose a mormon was hired to work at Starbucks. After being hired, he informs his boss that he will not make or serve any beverage containing caffiene. Now what? The manager has to keep him around, even though he isn't willing to do his job?

No because that example is terrible, the mormon has no grounds (religious or otherwise) to not make a caffeine beverage. Mormons are merely not allowed to personally consume caffeine.

Not to mention comparing something as contested as SSM to Starbucks is just... well, sad.

How on earth is making someone do their job in order to maintain their job "elitist?"

Because you are ignoring my previous 2 questions that directly affected the answer to the question you actually did answer.

Read it and you will find out what I mean.

[PocketRocket]

PR I think the question was about someone (ie. justice of the Peace) who refused to perform gay marriages for reasons other than religiious ones. I don't think they have any kind of protection. Nor should they.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, DOG. Late in replying. I haven't had the time to spend on forums lately, at least not as much as I used to.

Regarding the comment you addressed, a Justice'o'da'peace could refuse and claim that his grounds ARE religious.

Simple as that.

Religion is a very personal thing, and the interpretation of religion is also very personal.

In this regard I don't think anyone will be forced to do anything that they REALLY don't want to.

Which also strikes me as fair.

It will become known soon enough who the marryin' ministers (J.P.'s, etc) are, and which aren't.

[Renegade]

Here's the latest from Klein: Klein frustrated over gay marriage

It's beyond me how a government feels justified to stick it's nose into something which is so clearly an individual choice.

If you ask me, government should NOT define marriage, regardless of the gender of the participants. It is free to define the obligations and privlidges accorded a civil-union of 2 adults. It is a religious or social, or individual interpretation on whether this constitutes marriage.

[Black Dog]

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection from people like you that would rather use the government to stomp down the majority in addition to his own personal beliefs.

The civil servant is entitled to his own beliefs, but if those beliefs interfere with his or her ability to perform their job, they should find a job where their sensebilities won't be threatened.

Or do you suddenly not care about personal beliefs and the importance of them being protected in a free society? Is your society only allowed to be free when it suites your own beliefs? Does that not sound resoundingly elitist?

Again: no one is saying these individuals can't have their beliefs or express them in any way, only that if those beliefs interfere with their ability to perform their

job.

Of course not, that is why they will continue to do their jobs, just not in a manner that violates their freedoms. At least not in Alberta =)

If these individuals want to perform marriages in a way that is consistent with their personal religious beliefs, they should go out and get ordained. Here's the deal: these people are public servants: that means there job is to perform certain tasks for the public. Their own personal beliefs shouldn't trump the basic requirements of their job. If you have a cop who believes in the legalization of drugs, you'd still expect him to bust up a crack house.

[kimmy]

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection

Indeed. He/she is free to go and find a job that he/she is actually willing to do.

and

A civil servant is still a human, and in my society that entitles him to protection from people like you that would rather use the government to stomp down the majority in addition to his own personal beliefs.

The civil servant is entitled to his own beliefs, but if those beliefs interfere with his or her ability to perform their job, they should find a job where their sensebilities won't be threatened.

I understand the logic of the position. But is it consistent with Canada's treatment of similar issues in the past? (such as sikhs wanting to wear turbans while in uniform with the RCMP, or wear their kirpans in locations where wearing a knife is not allowed?)

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Government has created the mess and it is the responsibility of government to create a bureaucracy to attend to the new branch of marriage.

Freedom of religion is the most important freedom: the freedom from which all the others flow. SSM is anathema to many religious people and offensive to many who are not religious.

If the fiction that it is "marriage" is to pass into the mythology, then it is up to those who wrote the story to provide the separate process to prevent any conflict with freedom of religion and conscience.

That should not be a big deal.

[FTA Lawyer]

The protective legislation that Klein proposes is necessary if we are to allow JP's to refuse to conduct SSM ceremonies. Religious ministers/priests/etc. don't need it because they already have s. 2(a) of the Charter which allows them to exercise their faith even where it breaches another individual's Charter rights (not completely unlimited by the way).

A JP on the other hand is required to exercise the statutory duty of conducting marriage ceremonies by virtue of accepting the post. He or she can refuse to do a ceremony because they are too busy or going on holidays or any number of other valid reasons, but to refuse to marry someone because they are gay is contrary to human rights legislation, including s. 15 of the Charter, and therefore cannot be done (just like a private restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve a person if the reason is they are gay, or black, or female etc.).

Before the definition change, a gay couple could not get a marriage license, and if you have no licence, you can't be married...so if a JP was approached for a SSM ceremony it was denied for lack of a license, NOT because the couple was gay.

Now, the licenses are being issued, so a JP would have to actually deny to do the SSM on the basis of sexual orientation of the couple which, as I've said, is clearly contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. Without a corresponding enshrined right like s. 2(a), a JP would have nothing to use as a shield.

Personally, I'd have to say that Klien has actually found a sensible, and defensible middle ground. He's not going to continue to threaten to not allow SSM in Alberta, but he's also not going to force an individual JP to perform one if they are morally opposed to it.

I get how this proposal differs from the duty we place on a police officer (i.e. you don't get to pick and choose which laws you enforce), but in this subject area, it is an acceptable concept, and I might add, not outrageous or even new.

For example, as a lawyer I am bound by statutory duty to conduct each cause on behalf of a client to the best of my ability within the boundaries of the law...but I am not required to accept a retainer (in fact I'm obligated to refuse it) if I have a personal conflict of interest which might interfere with my ability to act.

I don't have to defend a child molester if I feel I cannot morally do so, and I wouldn't have to act for a gay couple who was wrongly denied a SSM license if my personal views on SSM might hinder the level of service those clients would receive.

Love him or hate him, Klien is now doing the right thing with SSM's as far as I'm concerned.

[Black Dog]

I understand the logic of the position. But is it consistent with Canada's treatment of similar issues in the past? (such as sikhs wanting to wear turbans while in uniform with the RCMP, or wear their kirpans in locations where wearing a knife is not allowed?)

I don't think a turban in any way affects a Mounties' ability to his do his job.

[Hawk]

BD, you basically said exactly what IMT said. Please refer to my reply to him for my rebuttal as I don't want to rehash the same answer for the same question (aka 'then he should get another job etc')

[kimmy]

I understand the logic of the position. But is it consistent with Canada's treatment of similar issues in the past? (such as sikhs wanting to wear turbans while in uniform with the RCMP, or wear their kirpans in locations where wearing a knife is not allowed?)

I don't think a turban in any way affects a Mounties' ability to his do his job.

Maybe not, but I don't think that was the question.

Did the RCMP agree to make changes to accomodate their religious beliefs? (did they? I don't actually know. I just recall it being a big issue at one point.) What about kirpans in schools? I recall this was a big issue at one point, as well.

The point is, accomodations could easily be made for civil servants who do not wish to solemnize same-sex marriages for religious reasons. eureka's suggestion, for instance:

create a bureaucracy to attend to the new branch of marriage.

-k