Court: Refusing same-sex marriage violates constitution

Saskatchewan's top court has decided that proposed legislation allowing provincial marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex weddings on religious grounds violates the constitution.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (153) Tweet

Saskatchewan's top decides that refusing to perform same-sex weddings on religious grounds violates is unconstitutional.

View Larger Image

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Mon. Jan. 10 2011 6:12 PM ET

Saskatchewan's top court has decided that proposed legislation allowing provincial marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex weddings on religious grounds violates the constitution.

In its decision, the Appeal Court said that accommodating commissioners' religious convictions does not justify discriminating against same-sex couples who want to tie the knot.

Five judges on the bench at Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal have been considering the case since it heard arguments on the proposed law last May.

That's when the provincial government sought advice on two versions of its proposed law -- one that would allow all of the province's approximately 370 commissioners to refuse to wed couples on religious grounds, and another that would only allow the exemption for those who held the job before gay marriage was legalized in 2004.

In the ruling issued Monday, the court said the effect of both options runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This violation would not be reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. As a result, if put in place, either option would be unconstitutional and of no force or effect."

In its decision, the court notes that marriage commissioners offer the only option for any individuals who want to marry in a non-religious ceremony.

"Many gay and lesbian couples will not have access to the institution of marriage unless they are able to call on a marriage commissioner to perform the required ceremony," the decision stated.

Detractors had argued that no rights would be violated because the proposed law compelled anyone refusing to perform a same-sex civil wedding to refer the couple to another commissioner who will.

But the court did not find that argument persuasive, observing there were no provisions to guarantee a minimum number of commissioners, accessible throughout the province, who would be willing to marry same-sex couples.

"It is not difficult for most people to imagine the personal hurt involved in a situation where an individual is told by a governmental officer 'I won't help you because you are black (or Asian or First Nations) but someone else will'," Justice Robert Richards wrote.

"Being told 'I won't help you because you are gay/lesbian but someone else will' is no different."

Sask. Justice Minister Don Morgan said the government will review the decision but added he did not think he would appeal.

"This is a very thorough review by five judges, rather than the usual three," Morgan said. "They examined the issue in depth and that is reflected in the detail of their advice.

"Given the thoroughness of the analysis, I am not recommending that the government appeal."

Marriage commissioner Larry Bjerland, of Rose Valley, Sask., said he was disappointed by the decision from the appeal court.

"We're not asking for a whole lot," he said. "All we're asking for are the same rights that anyone else has -- and that's to refuse to do work. If the work is contrary to what your religious beliefs are, then you shouldn't be forced into doing it."

Bjerland said he will consider his options, but may end up giving up his role.

"I'll have to find out what the alternative is. If they're going to suggest penalizing me by fining me or something of that nature, definitely I'll quit."

The issue stems from 2005, when devout Baptist commissioner Orville Nichols refused to marry a same-sex couple because it ran counter to his religious beliefs.

Nichols, who first became a marriage commissioner in 1983, launched his own complaint with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission against the province's Department of Justice.

The commission subsequently ruled that, as a Saskatchewan marriage commissioner, Nichols was acting as a public servant and therefore obligated to provide civil wedding services.

Nichols unsuccessfully petitioned Saskatchewan's highest trial court to reverse the decision.

Because it is a reference case, the Court of Appeal's judgment isn't legally binding.

With files from The Canadian Press

Comments are now closed for this story

BorderlandsDave
said

If the marriage commissioner was a white supremacist and the couple to be married,non white or biracial, would we allow him to refuse to conduct the ceremony on the basis of his beliefs. Or better yet, would we allow him to remain in that job.
If the marriage commissioner was a moslem, and the couple to be married, Christians, would we allow him to refuse, on the basis of his religious beliefs?
If the marriage commissioner was an upper class Hindu, and the couple to be married, lower class "untouchables" would we allow his religious beliefs to triumph over the right of the couple to receive equal benefit of government services?
If your religious beliefs will prevent you from providing the services the gov't has engaged you to provide, maybe you should be doing something else. Step aside and let someone do your job.

Kevin
said

Suppose you were a government official 10 years ago, and you firmly held the belief that God wanted homosexuals to marry? What if you are a government official and you firmly believe that God doesn't want Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses to marry?The answer in each case is obvious. The religious beliefs of any particular government official should not be allowed to thwart the will of the people as expressed by government.If you don't believe in homosexual marriage that is your right. If you don't believe this is the will of the people (or if you just feel this violates God's law) you should lobby your elected government officials to change it. (MP's and MLA's) However you should not expect (or even want) unelected government employees to decide what the law is are based on their personal beliefs. Government employees are not super-citizens who get to decide the law, they should have no more say than you and me.

CJ
said

It is a violation of the commissioner's rights to say they have to marry certain individuals. It is a violation of my rights to insist that I cannot speak out against what I believe to be wrong. Where will it stop?

Robert B
said

What in the heck is a civil servant anyway???? "Over paid, Under worked! " I quit", obviously has never entered their vocabulary!!!!!!

Archie
said

It is amazing how believers like to pick and choose what beliefs to follow and which to ignore.Anyone who reads the bible objectively and are not handicapped with the requirement that it be worshiped or respected will notice there are problems with using it as a guide for morality. For those marriage commissioners that feel it unjust that they be required to perform this duty because their faith or the bible prohibits it should actually read the book. There are many things which the book prohibits and many things which it commands that in a civilized society can no longer be tolerated. This is why we have laws made by the people for the people.

hubmik
said

Hey @ porch spoon, by the look of some couples these days how do you know they arent already doing so?@ RGBrook what a brilliant piece, did you write that or find it from the internet? absolutely perfect comment to shut a lot of bigots up!

kevin
said

It comes down to a church wedding vs a government wedding.

No where in the Bible does it say a wedding has to be sanctioned by the government.

A man and woman can marry and have the marriage recognized by God, without recognition by the government. Government law can not overthrow Gods law.

Lets get back to the basis. Lets have marriage without government intervention.

Stephen Strepsi
said

A lot of misunderstanding about this story:1) No one is saying religious leaders have to do anything: this article does not touch religious marriage, where religious leaders can do as they wish2) This article is about the public sector, who must treat all Canadian citizens equally under the constitution.3) The great thing about Canada next to health care is our CIVIL LAW. You are free to practise any religion, as long as those practises do not impinge someone else's civil rights. Does your religion disavow some people? Yes? fine. Does that give you a right to not serve them? No. Nor does it give the right to Stone them to death, execute them, or rape a member of their family to even the shame, as these religious customs contradict the civil law of our great land. Because guess what, there are different religions here too -- marriage in fact was common among the polytheistic slave-owning Egyptians long before the Bible, so civil law for civil marriage treats all us citizens equally.

judy
said

this is just not rightusing the Bible to defend little things such as not eating shellfish for "that's what the Bible says" is completely out of context. As a Christian, I know that the Bible does not promote at all same sex marriages and that its unlawful to do so.i cheer on these politicians that are finally standing their ground towards this issue.. good to know that some people out there support the stand against gays!

Jane
said

Would this even be an issue if the union between gays and lisbians was called anything except a 'marriage'?

A 'marriage' is the union between a male and female.

Steve from Calgary
said

Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasars and to God that which is Gods! or, those who belong to God, follow Gods rules, those who don't....

Steve from Calgary
said

The Commissioners do have to marry these people because of being a government official. And if I were one, being also a Christian, I would simply ask not to, and if 'forced' then I would say either I don't do it, or I lose my job for I can no longer with a good conscious perform what is required of me in my Job... But, a hard lesson for me to learn was not to judge the world (ie.. non-christians) by the Bible and the Morals I believe in. They do not believe it to be true, they might not even believe in a god so why should i expect them to follow my morals. But that does not mean they will not be judged, just it won't be by me, and if it is me who judges, then I will be judged by the same.. We as Christians are to live according to the laws of God and our land, and when they conflict we are to follow God's, but not expect non believers to follow suit, it is our faith, not theirs. They choose their own path, we choose ours. The Bible, the New testament never teaches that church and state are to be one entity, so why are we expecting it. Common brothers and sisters, wake up, the government is not called to enforce Gods rules, we are asked to follow them as Believers.

leslie segal
said

If you are being paid to perform a public office according to the law you should do the job or quit. If you refuse th do the job because of personal reasons, you should be fired. Bigotry should not be permitted or institutionalized in the public service.

sdgreen
said

I think it is time for government at what ever level to get out of the marriage business. Who really cares it two individuals or more agree to live together for purposes of family making. If some wish to follow whatever religion then so be it. As far as tax benefits for those that are 'married', abolish them and treat each person the same. If as a result, kids are born or adopted, then apply benefits to the children.Enough of this nonsense.

bibi
said

How can you choose who you love,
And why could you not marie, live our have children with this person.

Moral Atheist
said

Get over it. There is no god. There are living breathing woman and men who wish to get married and have the right to do so. By allowing civil servants to jump on the mythical �god� bandwagon it could possibly eliminate that right just by having no one willing to perform the marriage. Though frankly � we are Canadian and the majority of us respect the rights and freedoms of all our citizens freedom to get married. For our MORALS include that we respect the rights and freedoms of our people.

Religious when convenient
said

Ever hear of Christmas, or Easter? How about the sabbath day? Employees may not be discriminated against for religious reasons and generally speaking get time off with pay for such holy days. As you don't believe in those rights perhaps you should stick to your beliefs and work on those days...but of course you want the grace that allows you to pretend that you are entitled to the same freedom but haven't settled on a belief system except the one that presently allows you to be a hypocrite.

PBW
said

Effectively, the ruling, like several others, renders moot sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter; and, I guess, section 27 "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." was itself ignored by the decision, which ignores - and certainly does not enhance - the Christian and other religious cultural heritages of those groups that emigrated to Saskatchewan from many parts of the world. Rather than making such a fuss over a minor issue, perhaps the Gay community should have persuaded its members to become marriage commissioners;and should do so now to replace those who will undoubtedly refuse to continue after this ruling.

Elias Nasrallah
said

Refusing to Marry Gay couples violates the Constitution?!What about violating those who's religious beliefs states that they should not Marry Gay couples??Is this Canadian Constitution only for one group of poeple? Or, does it apply only if it is to your advantage? Let people decide if they want or not want to Marry Gay couples. Just like it is the right of Gays to Marry or not Marry.

Linda Schultz
said

It seems to me that the "religious" person who is seeking justice is being told that : we cannot help you because you are : Catholic; Baptist; Evangelical;etc.

Does this not bear some weight in the equation of personal rights and freedoms. Conscience (seeking the truth in God's teaching) should also be given equal rights.

james c
said

To all the people saying same sex marriage isn't marriage, marriage has evolved beyond that, just like Christmas has become more of a commercial holiday than religious, hop off your T-Rex and join us in the real world, the year is 2011....

One For Me
said

"Persons are still entitle to dislike and disapprove of individual behavior.....in PRIVATE." Then we won't criticize politicians, athletes for their performance during a game, etc? Never mind the gay marriage issue, start checking them for dope! They've got to be on crack? They want equality? With who? This isn't the old, all men are created equal before God line, is it? Oh wait, they don't want God in it, sorry. Equality, right, but the gays get to set the scales, right?

Shawn
said

This story is about public servants having to perform their duties for ALL members of the public, not just the ones they like or feel comfortable with. Religious convictions belong in the home or appropriate places of worship, not in the public lineup for civil marriage certificates. If a public servant feels their religious convictions outweigh their obligations to treating Canadians fairly and equally under the law, then they should resign their position and seek other employment opportunities.

Tomlg
said

Regardless or what you might think gay marriage, the fact of the matter is, as a marriage commissioner, you don't have the right to withhold services against others due to your religious beliefs. A marriage commissioner is not the same thing as a priest. It is a position of public service that, like all other public service positions, strictly adherent to the rights defined by our Charter. To raise an example, would any of you approve of a Christian police officer, a public servant just like a marriage commissioner, refusing to help a victim of a crime just because the victim happened to be gay? This ruling should be applauded and be used to firmly remind others that a position of public service is not to be used as an implement to enforce personal religious beliefs.

Redfern
said

The Liberals really made a mess of this whole thing!First: Marriage originally belonged to the churches, not the state. The Liberals should have given marriage back to the churches and created civil unions for all. That would have avoided a lot of this nonsense. That said...what is the point of a civil marriage anyway? If you love each other, why do you need a piece of paper that says so? And since no children can come of the unions, why should one party be financially responsible for the other? Payment for sex? And since the co-habitation laws allow for palimony and long-term support., and a well-written will would allow for inheritance regardless of status..there doesn't seem to be much point. (NOTE: I am aware that gay couples often acquire children through various means, but they cannot physically create one themselves. Besides...that's a topic for another day)Other than the gay community being able to thumb their noses at churches--there is nothing to be gained by marriage. They only want it because they couldn't have it.Second: The gentleman involved was hired in 1983--long before the law changed. The courts should have recognized this and allowed for the existing Commissioners to refer--that would have been fair. Now this man will be forced to quit his 27 year career because the province, and indeed the country, pulled the rug out from his feet. He took the job in good faith--it's the courts and the gay community who are acting in bad faith. The practice of grandfathering is common in other professions--why not this one?The gay community just wants another punch at a religious person. I have to wonder...what happened to his rights?

francis left wing
said

I really cannot believe how many people are biggoted and racist in this country. we are not a democracy, and never have been a democracy. Do we elect the Prime Minister or Premier? answer NO. that is not a democracy we are a sociallistic society, which means that we have majority rule with minority rights. And until you rednecks get over it, we (gay/lesbian/minorities) will continue taking you racists to court and we will continue winning. After this, if a Marraige commissioner refuses me, I would not only take him to human rights, but I would sue his buttocks off also for whatever I can get, you people want to be Americans, well us minorities can act like Americans too and hit you biggots where it hurts, in your pocket books.

Mike in ON
said

I suppose next we'll be legislating that Ford dealers MUST sell someone a Honda if that's what they want, and saying 'no,' because you're a Ford dealer, is discrimination.

Joey Belluci
said

Irony at it's best, for millenia Christians have hated, discriminated and slaughtered people they see as "heathens", yet still expect to be coddled by the law? Get with the times, this isn't the dark ages where everything revolves around religion, this is modern time and there is little to no room for your hypocrisy in OUR day and time.

Will
said

As I recall when the legistation (federal and provincial) was brought it, the conscience clause allowed the marriage commissioner to opt out and allow another to do the deed. This is just another activist judge with an agenda.

griffin1573
said

Why can't SOME of the religious keep their religious dogma to them self?Why are we always forced to listen to what your "god" has to say...through your interpretation of course.Your belifs DO NOT control the world any more.( because you've done such a good job up till now).

John from Saskatoon
said

Way to show tolerance KMC. It just makes me feel even stronger about my so called intolerance to your type. What's good for the goose is good for the gander buddy. I guess for those of us who believe in God we won't miss anything if it turns out we're wrong but boy are you going to be in trouble when you find out there is a God. Hope you can handle the heat.

Bicurious George
said

If the motives of the gay community are as transparent as they would have everyone believe, then can any of them explain why their parades have such sexual overtures? Why men dress up like women, adorned with bright feathers and devour one another in lust? Just asking, because I'm not really seeing the rights and financial motive coming through on this. Hey, you don't think it's people wanting society to accept their perverted immorality do you? Just a thought!

BCDarr
said

What crap. Hiding your bigotry behind your bible has been going on for centuries. The bible has been used to support slavery, denying women equal rights, segregation, book burnings, etc.When will we stop accommodating people who hold the bible with one hand while they hurl hatred with the other?Here's an idea. If your religious views and your job conflict, quit your job. Or do you think only OTHER people should be inconvenienced by your religion?

Jim
said

Why does an unwritten section of the Charter (the "reading in" of "homosexuals" into the Section 15[a] which lists the grounds upon which it is illegal to discriminate against people) trump a written section of the Charter (namely Section 2 which deals with the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, the freedom of thought, and the freedom of belief)? Why minorities always find a way to trample on the rights of the majority?

Carl
said

For a court to rule that the Charter (which does not even mention sexual orientation) requires public officials to perform marriages (which are defined in every English dictionary as the union of a man and woman) in spite of their personal religious convictions (which ARE explicitly protected by the Charter) is patently absurd. Judges are not supposed to invent the law - they are supposed to apply it. I actually agree with those who say religion does not belong in the public sphere. However, I also believe that marriage does not belong in the public sphere. Governments should not license or perform marriages. If people want to get married in a church, there are churches (like the United Church) that will cater to same-sex couples. Otherwise, they can live common-law until they become legal spouses.

John from Saskatoon
said

The comments by gay and lesbian groups on this shows me that it's not about equality but about being able to force people who are against their lifestyle choice to have to go against their beliefs if they want to keep their jobs. The reason I have come to this conclusion is because gay and lesbian couples would have been given a commisioner who woulds perform the marriage for them. If your going to preach tolerance you should then be tolerant of people that don't agree with you. Apparently tolerance is only expected to be given to minority groups but not expected from them. I think it's time to come out against the intolerance of gays towards those of us who don't approve of their lifestyle.

NS
said

I see strong arguments on both sides. These is actually a tough ruling for any judge. I am leaning towards the Govt official, not being forced to go against his religious beliefs, while the gay cpl have the right to marry, just have to find a Govt official that is open to gay unions. There should be one avail in every province, or hire one.Either way, there are tougher situations going on in the world, floods, famines, etc, so let's get this smaller one done.

TradtionalMarriageSupporter
said

During the marriage debate i recall the gay community insisting that such a situation would never occur, that no one one ever be forced to marry someone against their religious views. Unfortunately, this ruling is hardly surprising. How is it that gay rights trump religious freedoms? It certainly seems that 1984 has arrived, and 2 2 = whatever the courts tell us it does.

Judges 21:25
said

1) Marriage is a Judeo-Christian institution and commissioners with religious conviction should have the freedom to refer same gender couples to another official. 2) The Bible is the Christian's guide for godly living (2 Timothy 3:16) and those who do not accept its Author & principles are welcome to do so... we all have the freedom to choose. 3) Those who profess to be Christians but are actively practicing a homosexual lifestyle are not following Christ, regardless of whether they are "married" to their partner and whether or not they "Praise the Lord." 4) Same gender issues have nothing to do with 400 years of slavery and to equate the two is an insult to every black American & Canadian whose family has come through that struggle. 5) People of same gender persuasion have every right to live their lives with as much happiness and dignity as possible, but so do people who disagree with their lifestyle and consider it to be wrong, ungodly and unhealthy for individuals, families and society as a whole. 6) There are limits to marriage... society doesn't allow gay men to marry young boys. Why? Because it's outside the bounds of what marriage is all about, and most importantly... it's just plain WRONG! At least until our relativistic, de-sensitized, anything-goes society deems otherwise. Stay tuned for more anarchy (Judges 21:25).

Scott Stelmaschuk
said

"All we're asking for are the same rights that anyone else has -- and that's to refuse to do work. If the work is contrary to what your religious beliefs are, then you shouldn't be forced into doing it."Should read:"If the work is contrary to what your religious beliefs are, then you shouldn't be doing it."Legal marriage/State marriage and religious marriage are not the same entity; if you want to turn away same-sex couples, go join the clergy.

Modern times, get with 'em
said

Government employees must be the biggest whiners I've ever seen, I don't like carrying pipe but do I do it? Yes, it's a part of the job, grow up, this isn't the medieval ages, get off your pedestal and do your job. Religion should hold absolutely 0 sway when it comes to making laws, it's simply far too archaic of a stand point to realistically fit in the modern world. If you want to pray to some figure in the sky, go ahead but don't drag me down with you.

Tide is shifting back
said

This entire homosexual issue has gone too far and common sense and proper boundaries are coming back to put it into its proper perspective and context within the life of our nation. This ruling is not representative of the majority of sentiment Canadians have. It is wrong, very wrong.

Tolerant and aware
said

I have a brother-in-law in the UK whom I love dearly. He has been in a strong gay relationship for 30 or more years. Recently, he and his partner entered into a legal "civil union." Friends who attended said it was lovely ceremony. They are a committed couple who, until the "union" had no succession rights etc. ie neither had the legal, civil guarantee of even a common-law partnership following the death of the other. This is for me an intolerable situation
and I accept the need to redress it. I am aware though of the clash of values when it commes to describing the union as a "marrriage." I am of the opinion that such a description is not a civil one and should therefore be restricted to those unions which are within the value system of an organisation that is outside the civil one, ie. the church. This fits perfectly with the situation that we now (supposedly) have: ie the separation of church and state. The church provides a marriage bond while the state confers a state recognised and legal civil bond. By insisting on "marriage" the gay and lesbian community has, ergo, usurped to themselves the rights of a different and larger group .
I gave up the invitation to be a Marriage Commissioner when some years ago the province in which I then lived insisted that if I were to accept the appointment, I would be required to perform gay "marriages." This I could not in all conscience do.

Sheking my head
said

Just another step down the slippery slope created by Trudeau's flawed and extremely dangerous Charter . . .

Kiprit
said

This is an attack on the religious freedom of Canadians. It'll be used to justify further discrimination of religious people in the future. Hopefully as as the secular, white Canadians die off and become extinct and as more religious immigrants come, Canadian values will hopefully change.

Jaid in Toronto
said

Mere political games that are turned into business functions for the sake of business life itself.There is a right to religion, and a right to freedom of expression, this law strikes down both. As tough as it is on money to make things go right, if no priest in the community is willing to perform a marriage ceremony for gays/lesbians, they should at least put a job ad (even if for 1 day) to have one on this day.The problem as I see here is the lack of communication on both ends. Marriage takes a lot of time and planning. Like many other problems, early diagnosis solves it.

jayinstoon
said

I think what people are forgetting about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that YOUR rights can not supercede someone ELSE's rights. Yes, you have the right to religion, but that doesn't supercede someone else's right to sexual orientation. Therefore...if you don't like it..don't do it! Suck it up and live with the REAL WORLD we live in people.

Susan Fairbairn
said

It is not the homosexuals that Scripture says 'no' to, it is the homosexual lifestyle that Scripture says 'no' to. God still loves the homosexual. Someone's religious beliefs should not be condemned or minimized just because they do not feel comfortable performing a ceremony for a couple whose relationship does not conform with the other person's belief system.

Graeme
said

"All we're asking for are the same rights that anyone else has -- and that's to refuse to do work.". Huh? Who has that right? I mean you can quit or strike or whatever, and there is some room for refusal if what you're asked to do is illegal or unnecessarily dangerous, but if you agree to stay on the job, you pretty well have to do what management tells you. Why not just join a religion that is against alcohol, get a job as a bartender, then say serving alcohol is against your religion and sit at home collecting a pay-cheque? I believe that PRIVATE churches should be able to choose who they marry, but those who CHOOSE to work for the government need to realize their job (which they are likely overpaid to do) is to marry those for whom it is legal. For this official, I suggest doing exactly what you asked for: refusing to do work by getting off the government payroll.

1voice
said

Denying the commissioners the right to refuse to perform the ceremonial of marriage between homosexuals is also a violation of the constitution. Namely, section 2 a) "freedom of conscience". So why are the rights of homosexuals more important than someone else's? Why can't these couples go to churches and ministers within their own community? Why have they not taken the time and trouble to prepare a system within their own communities instead of forcing people with different fundamental principals to try to accomodate them?

This is absolutely not "like racism", people choose whether or not to live as homosexuals just as people choose whether or not to be celibate, to be promiscuous, to engage in whatever sexual activity they choose. Sex itself is voluntary and consensual, marriage is not even remotely related to race, colour or physical handicaps there is no choice whatever about accepting.

peterj
said

And the state sactioned race to the bottom continues.

Donny in Edmonton
said

By forcing someone who won't join a same-sex couple due to religious reasons to do so violates another part of the constitiution: Freedom of religion. Now I don't hate gays and lesbians, but did we need to open that can of worms just to satisfy some egos?

Opposing is NOT hatred
said

@Atheist - your comments are offensive and ignorant of the fact that "hatred" does not apply to a faith perspective regarding the sin of homosexuality. To try and say opposition to homosexuality is hatred is dishonest discourse to serve your own myopic view. I can disagree and oppose homosexuality on many grounds but because I do does not make it hatred as you wrongly imply. You can choose not to believe in God despite the fact no evidence exists to disprove God's presence yet there are many suggestions He does. Just look around.

Proud to be PUBLICALLY religious
said

Tim in Ottawa wrote about religion:"And no, we gays are not trying to subdue religion, we are trying to keep it out of the public sphere, where it doesn't belong."But religious and other moral beliefs are just that: how people ought to act. Be it due to belief in God, from reading Plato, or whatever, religion is everywhere. Forcing it out of the public sphere, as you put it, is an abomination. Oddly, trying to keep something out of the public sphere IS trying to subdue something.I think that we ought to have parades, "Religious Rights Parades", where we walk down the streets, people of all religions, proudly "doing unto others as they do unto us" or whatever.Tim in Ottawa: you ought to be ashamed of yourself, trying to legislate people's actions.

Melanie Terrace,BC
said

I don't like the way religion is being used to bolster either side of the argument about same sex marraige.I never thought of it as a religious argument,but a social one.One about the place of culture and tradition in our society.One about who decides what the laws will be.Not one about any religion.Though other religions are also getting laws imposed that go against the wishes of the vast majority,and in favour of highly visible minorities. I would say to the married lesbian women,that I am glad you found happiness.Never in my life have I ever fought to deny that to anyone.And never in my life would I find homosexuality as a good reason not to like or love someone.If my kids turn out to be gay,I will love them just as much as I always have.And assuming you and your life partner are persons of ,good character, I would like you too.Every person ever born should have equal rights.Never once did I ever dispute that.But this is not about rights. However,I do not,nor will I ever see same sex marriages as real marriages.The definition of marriage has it's roots in societies that existed long before organized religion,and long before laws were written in formal languages.People of opposit sexes were joined together as couples when people still lived in caves. You absolutely should have equal rights,and the right to be united and live as a couple.But by the real definition,I don't consider you married, and I still want my kids raised be a married man and a married woman.Take offense if you must, but none is intended. All you are really arguing about is what we call your union.

David
said

If you aren't up to the task of being a civil servant, don't be a civil servant.

God's laws trump man's laws
said

Marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. Call it whatever you want but a homosexual union is NOT a marriage. No court in the land can alter what God has established.

Big A
said

You have to wonder who actually makes the rules in this country. Marriage makers have now had their constitutional rights taken away. Judges should be carrying out judicious rulings of laws made by the people - not vice versa.

firstMickey
said

For those who want marriage for financial reasons, whatever their stripe, what is the problem. If porking and financial security is the goal, how silly to protest. If demanding another person to be a hypocrite to please your sexual fantasy is at stake, you are very shallow. Get a life. Sex is not the be all and end all.

Citizen
said

Why would you want to be married by someone who doesn't even want to perform the ceremony......doesn't the ruin what is supposed to be a happy day?If a person is uncomfortable performing the ceremony they should be allowed to quietly bow out and allow someone else, who is open minded and willing, to perform the ceremony. Forcing people to do something that conflicts with what they believe is not fair to either party in this case. If someone does not want to perform the ceremony and someone else is available then the other person should perform it. However, if they are the only person available who can perform it, and no one else is available then they should have to perform it. That is fair I think.

griffin1573
said

You DO NOT get to cry religious discrimination to protect your ability to discriminate against others.You have the right to your own CHOOSEN religious beliefs.You DO NOT get to dictate to others that you are right and others are wrong.The story is about a GOV"T official.NOT a religious official.Follow the laws of your country or your god.Don't inflict one upon the other.As a GOV"T official your religious opinion holds no weight.

Disgusted in NB
said

1984 comes to us now. "They" are forcing us to act, even against our convictions.

MACDONALDBANK1
said

A special compliment to the Parents � Mothers , Fathers and other family members who have stood up for their sons, daughters, nieces and nephews who may be facing identity issues as they enter their teens � possibly being bullied; when in fact being gay or bi is totally natural.

Norm, Ottawa
said

I can't believe there's this many people who live their lives according to what the Bible says! Think for yourself people! Break free! You're better than any Bible. . .

MACDONALDBANK1
said

Paul
said

As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be in the day of the coming of the Son of Man.And guess what, once again the Bible was right. Go figure.

Kevin McDonald
said

So the right to be gay now trumps the right to believe homosexuality is immoral. And easily applied solutions to achieve reasonable accomodation are seen as not good enough. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell, Animal Farm

Adam
said

It is time to alter the constitution if this is the way it is being interpreted. The strong sustaining fabric of society is family that constitutes one man, one woman in a life-long union with the welcoming of children. This is also common sense.No apologies for saying so.

MACDONALDBANK1
said

The evil writings in Leviticus 18:22 � against gays � depicts: �P� � �priestly rules� & expanded by the pope; homophobes and religious frauds � to attack the gay community and never meant to apply to the public -- but to priests. Leviticus exists in the old testament & torah � & was written long after Moses -- 600BC.

How would you like it � if hate speech was directed to your brother or sister as you sat in the pew; spewed by some better than thou religious lunatic with a hateful black book about Leviticus -- under his arm?

The pope and churches fully aware that Leviticus 18:22 applies only to priests refuse to remove this stigma maliciously persecuting gays. Kids bullied into suicide �! Being black or left-handed or being gay is just as natural.
If the black community or women had it written that they should be put to death; how would they like that?
Churches are committing hate crimes and more succinctly a violent criminal offence against a federally protected minority namely the gay community. It is actually a bigger moment in history � gays standing up for equality � soldiers being discharged are indeed exposing something far greater ... the realization that there is something far more evil at work -- hateful religion which should be discharged from society -- period.

Ian
said

So everyone should be ok for polygamists to be married then? Since most of these pro gay comments seem to think it makes no difference who marries as long as the people love one another, the laws should include ALL.

KMC
said

As an engaged gay man, I have no longing to be married in a church....why any self respecting homo would want to be in a church in the first place is beyond me!! They should not be forced to marry us if choose not to.Love seeing all the creationists' hate filled rants.....once again they don't have all the info, hell they believe in a god instead of the proven evolution, so we can't change their minds anyway.....GO RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY!!!!

KC
said

To the priests out there who still insist that being gay is a choice - I hate to break it to you but men who are truly straight can not make such choices. For you to believe that it is a choice actually means that you are bi-sexual.

Secular Civil Service
said

There's no room in our democracy for discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court is correct is stating that services provided by the government may not be restricted by the personal beliefs of individuals performing a public service. Imagine going get a driver's license and the clerk says that they don't want to serve you - for whatever personal reason, and refers you to another clerk - ridiculous!

PVT
said

The slippery slope just got a little more slippery. Freedom is slipping away people - make your MP feel the heat!!! Freedom of religious expression is a major part of our society and that is being chipped away at here. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not - bigger issues are at hand now.

reece
said

When I leave my house and go out on the street, I am not entering a mosque or a church. I am walking a public street and we are all to conduct our days with respect and tollerance. Some religious figures here expect us to bow down to the many religions and equal number of god(s). It is clearly apparent that these people are not understanding the context of the constitution. The constitution respects your right to believe in any god(s) you like but nevertheless you must obey the secular laws otherwise the society would become non functional just trying to obey the many religions out there and the countless sects of christians and muslim (cripes! you guys cant even agree with each other!) This is a secular society, folks, and the judge could only have come out with the one and only sane ruling.

happy
said

You "good" religious types are so narrow-minded and uptight. Is that what your religion has made you? The bible was written by man and is nothing more than a collection of stories. Fiction. Nothing good has ever come from religion. It has kept people uneducated, stupid and superstitious. It caused wars, pain and suffering and sheltered pedophiles. Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

Said
said

As a Muslim I expect my Imam to marry me in my mosque. Enough of the prejudice against me!

Ashley
said

If you follow the Bible and eat shellfish (Lobster, crab, etc) then you are a sinner because the Bible states you cannot consume shell fish. Therefore how can you rail against homosexuals, bible in hand and a Lobster tail hanging out the corner of your mouth? This would make you not just a sinner but a hypocrite. Fear is the problem and it's no better than in the 1960s when black people were banned from using the same toilets as whites in America's deep south. Fear ...overcome "your" fear..scare-dee-cat!

Janice
said

As a gay person I believe that "I" am entitled to equal rights just like anyone else. I also am a firm believer in keeping our institutions sacred and true to form. But in order for the evolution of these age old institutions to survive is that they must move with the times otherwise they'll go the way of the dinosaurs no matter how much they choose to pretend and ignore changing times. They can't keep acting like an ostrich with their heads in the sand. Gay marriage could benefit religion and provide it with new revenue and giving homosexuals legal and spiritual sanctity could provide a strong bond and acceptance which translates into happy balanced couples who contribute to the greater society and advocate on behalf of the religions that support them as well. It could be a win, win situation and right now everyone is riding a tide of "fear". Be fearless and just come together and through unity we can all turn this into a better world.

Justin
said

Sorry, but you're supposed to keep your personal and professional lives separate.As the laws of Canada state a same-sex couple can marry, the commissioners must preform their JOB, to marry these couples. If the commissioners do not agree with the responsibilities of their job they have every right to quit.Religion at it's finest...

happy
said

@Marlene: I couldn't agree more!

IT Manager from Edmonton
said

This is another attack on religion as section 1 of the charter specifically guarantees religious freedoms, where as section 15 was interpreted by the courts to protect homosexual marriage. "Not a problem" said the politicians during the debate over amending bill C-38, we will allow opt out to protect religious freedoms for government officials and someone else will help you but it does put the 2 sections at odds so you knew this was a matter of time till a court made such a decision.Tolerance does not mean accommodation so it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility here, I believe the court is wrong on this one as it completely ignored section 1 in favor of section 15 and that is not right.What's next, becuase of this ruling about government official not allowed to refuse service if you want service in French but the person at the counter does not speak it so they will get someone else to help you you launch a human rights complaint?? Oh wait that's happening already.

Mandosa
said

No surprises here. I'm sure this is the 'freedom' the founders of this great nation had in mind so long ago. Our moral downward spiral continues....

Rose
said

Regardless of what you believe, personal religious convictions have no place in performing your duties as a public servant. If you don't like it, find another job.

Gregory Boudreau
said

This is sad, making people preform something that goes against what they beleive in, is just wrong. I guess it won't be the same if we forced gays and lesbians in preforming something they don't beleive in, they would be screaming bloody murder. These people are in the minority, but we try and accomidate them but it never seems to be enough, give them an inch they want a mile.

Atheist
said

I'm curious to know why gays would even want to be married under a religion that doesn't condone their relationship.... but that's not for me to decide.

I stand by the latest ruling. Go gays go!

@Moral Majority (or did you mean to put "Moral Superiority") - get with the times. If we never acted against the church, we'd still believe that Earth is the center of the solar system.

What is the problem with gays getting married anywhere they please? I bet if you REALLY wanted to get married in a place that was sacred to some other religion, you would do it regardless of who's feet you stepped on (actually many of you already have - First Nations have been claiming this land is sacred since we (Europeans) arrived here.)

I do not stand for the religious arguments against gays (or any other arguments for that matter). It's baseless hatred, plain and simple.

Jim
said

I myself am a recently married gay man. For us it was one of the most joyous experiences,in attendance at our wedding, was my brother and his wife, my brother in law and his wife ( A lutheran pastor) and father in law. Everyone in attendance at our wedding has a personal relationship with God. I know our marriage has brought my husband and I closer to God. While many will spill out reference points from the Bible it was these same reference points, that led people to enslave others for 400 years, to beat and brutalize their wives etc. The most interesting this about this debate is,....it is not really religious, as those who oppose gay marriage come from within and outside of the church. Just as racists. God came to bring love to the world, God loves me, and what a clever crime of the devil, to tell people that they were born destined for Hell. Nothing like the pious Christian to bar the doors of the church, they did this with other races, and used this to divide the people. God gives me strength and God shows me love, I dont loook to man for that, I look to God, and he has enriched our lives for it, and as we prayed and asked he has brought forth honest, caring, compassionate followers of Christ into our lives. Who who sleep with does not define who you are. I have seen so much fornication within the Christian church, yet they are quick to point out what sin will send others to hell, time to look in the mirror folks, if a hateful face is looking back at you, maybe you should pray. Praise the Lord!

Are you kidding?
said

Gays are not enforcing their ideals on anyone. If you want to follow religious rule, work in a church. If you want to follow public law, then be aware of the law and your duties. Why should an official of a secular government be allowed to make up his own rules as he goes along? They always have the religious freedom to quit their job if it conflicts with their beliefs. This is not superiority, it is asking the government to follow the laws they made, which was ridiculously up for debate for some reason.

Religious people seem to think it is ok to discriminate as long as it is a "religious ideal". But you can call a skunk a squirrel and it would still stink just as badly.

MARG MM
said

This is the right decision. Marriage commissioners should know when they take the job, that there may be gay/lesbian couples that want to be married, and regardless of religion, it is their duty to preform the ceremony. It is no different than walking into a bank and having a teller say to someone of different color or religion, "I can't help you because my religion forbids it". If it is part of your "job description" then religion should play no part, and if it does, then perhaps you are in the wrong job.

Brian
said

I love how people come out against gays quoting the bible. Maybe we should start quoting the bible on pre marital sex and put laws into place about that. Maybe we should quote the bible on a host of other things that goes against peoples rights and freedoms.Maybe people should read their bible and live by the WHOLE book before going by only 1 or 2 passages that they prefer.

An Old Soldier
said

Then my dear fellow citizens. The Charter is wrong. Forcing one to go against their religious and moral compass is in my mind discriminatory. Particularly when there are other commissioners willing to perform the civil union. Wrong just wrong. Freedom is not free, there is a greater compass that should not be forced on anyone.

DLB
said

You two are ridiculous. Gays are not forcing their ideals, or subduing religion, they are simply fighting for their own rights to marry. The story, and ruling, clearly state that a commissioner can not just pass them off to the next person, because A: That's still a form of persecution against the charter of rights, and B: in some cases, there is no other commissioner to do the job. Come on folks, you gotta read the story before you start with the rhetoric.

Max
said

Bible, Bible, Bible - Blah, Blah, Blah.Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Too bad the Holy Rollers only practice what is suitable to them. Hypocrites!

Mark
said

Isn't "freedom" great?

John Lethbridge
said

Well the provincial marriage commissioner still reserves the right to say nothing, quit his job and move on. At least it was appropriately noted in the article that same sex couples would have limited access to these unions assuming the appropriate understanding that most most clergy would have nothing to do with these unions. It would be a very sad day when ministers of the Word are forced to facilitate these unions. On another note, this is about the first positive use of a human rights commission I have seen. For some reason I would have expected that the human rights commission would have gone after Nichols over this.

Andrew
said

Because if you're an individual and part of the majority and you want rights in Canada, you're screwed!

Er
said

If there is some Church leader unwilling to perform this kind of marriage-then He or She is guilty I guess & They should go to jail for one day with all the meals and refreshments they want.with a Good Day of rest..

Joanne from Barrie
said

I think it is a terrible inustice.The marriage commissioners are the ones beingdescriminated against. Why are their beliefs insignificant. So what the gays and the government are saying is that they dont care about the marriage commissioners, just as long as you do what I want, and what I believe in. What kind of double standard is that.Im just about coming to the end of my rope with this same sex marriage thing.......I think the majority of the people are in the same boat. Let these commissioners have the freedom of making up their own mind

Mark Smith (Montreal, PQ)
said

This is a very simple matter. If you work for the public, then you work for the public as a whole, not selectively choosing what kind of public you'd prefer to work with. You work for society, and society is going to have a bunch of people you don't like, but you still have to work for them. If that isn't your ideal job, then the public sector is not for you. Working the private sector will allow you to selectively choose who you want to deal with.

Ginger
said

Religion and state are seperate in this country. If you don't want to marry EVERYONE as a marriage commissioner then you should not work be a marriage commission.

You don't hear of gays and lesbians raising complaints against churches directly for not allowing them to marry just to governmental officals for a service they are to provide to everyone. Gays and lesbians do have the LEGAL right to marry in this Country.

CE
said

Let me understand this... Gay marriage is about equality and protection of minority rights. So denying gay marriage is a violiation of the Charter of Rights.Using this argument, we have to accept that other cultures and religions allow multiple marriages. Therefore polygamy should also be legalized in Canada.

Kari
said

If he is a public servant than he does not get to pick and choose who he marries. There is enough anger and hate in this world already, why can't 2 people that love each other be allowed to add some joy to the world! It is not for us to judge each other. What if the tables were turned, how would you feel?

Harry98
said

Sask. should invoke the ''notwithstanding clause''. End of problem.

a married lesbian
said

I can't believe its up for debate either. it disgusts me that as a human being that i even have to ponder the notion of equal rights.

Unfortunately, because of folks like Moral Majority and NGL this issue will be debated to death to protect something they perceive as immoral.

I have a million words drumming in my brain in response to the emotions these two comments have brought about but instead ... maybe something simple enough for them to understand.

May you both be blessed with gay or lesbian children or grandchildren who would rather put a bullet in their head then face the hatred that has been pounded into their souls since birth.

God bless ... a happily married lesbian married to another happily married lesbian with 3 beautiful children, 3 gorgeous grandkids, a home, a mortgage, fully employed and very forgiving to folks like you.

JUDGENOT
said

"reasonable and justifiable"Sounds like the opinion of the unreasonable and unjustifiable.Look out this maybe bigger than the unholy cartoons!

Greg in Cambridge
said

I do not agree with the decision.Taking away their rights to not perform the procedure for Religious reasons is a very poor decision. You can not force people to accept this lifestyle.Things were a lot simpler before this was forced on us.

griffin1573
said

The wineing of the religious right begins.The 2000 odd years of religion controling and opressing mankind is being challenged.So they start crying how their the ones being unfairly persecuted.Ironic.If you work for the Gov't you follow the law of the land.NOT your personal belief system.If they contradict each other.You have the option of deciding for yourself which you follow.But you don't get to dictate to everyone else,anymore,what you feel should be done. The days of religious dogma being used to crete and dictate poloitical policy are at an end.Everyone has the right to their religioun. HOWEVER those rights stop when they inflict those beliefs upon others.You have every right to your opinion.AND I have every right not to be inposed upon by you and your beliefs.

What Next
said

Our country has been taken from us by a group of law makers who should be thrown out of office.The basis rule of marriage is to procreate.Any arrangement that does not fit this criteria is a sham.Love is one thing marriage is another.If our courts continue to mix the two up we may end up with an all male or female society.

Richard
said

Why don't gay people make up their own religion?Hey, its big business! Plus you get to make up your own holidays.

Charles
said

I believe the root of this issue is that religious groups allowed themselves to get intertwined with government bodies that sanction and recognize the marriage union thus putting themselves in the pickle that they are in today. As many religious groups will state that unless you are married in a church by a ordained minister of their faith and believe what they believe then they don't recognize the union.... so I don't think it's a stretch to say that the same constitutional law that is broken for Gay and Lesbians is also broken for non card carrying fundamentalist Christians today. The only difference is they are speaking out.

viral venus
said

While I sympathize that in our ever changing society, extremely traditional beliefs might seem to be under attack, the simple fact in this case is that a public servant can't be allowed to discriminate against any members of the public they are paid to serve. Imagine the publicly employed, taxpayer salaried marriage commissioner had asked the court to allow him to refuse to marry interacial couples or aboriginal couples based on his Baptist faith. When you substitute a different group for "same sex" asking for the right to refuse service is clearly an attempt to condone discrimination by a public servant.

scrooge
said

Kids, kids, kids, time to grow up. Is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian and wanting to marry, even in Saskatchewan. Being Pentecostal myself I find it Christian that two persons regardless of their sexual orientation should be wed and Canada is on the forefront of fair human rights to all humans. I applaud the decision to require commissioners to wed all who come before them. If any choose not to wed all persons, they should not be permitted to legally marry any. Is an all or nothing requirement by Canadian Law.W2G.

Northguy
said

While I understand people's frustration in this, people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to marry a gay couple. That being said gays are to be treated as equals according to the laws of Canada. I am tired of when people are bringing in their personal religious beliefs when politics are involved. If people can't set aside their religious beliefs for their political views then perhaps they should not be in their current position.

Spike
said

nothing new...just more social engineering.

LOL
said

Ever try to screw together two nuts? How about two bolts? You can't "Marry" them and together they perform no useful function. Same with homosexual marriage. It is not a right to elevate a useless function to the level of a useful one...That is exactly the case here.

Canadians need to challenge this
said

The gay agenda is opposed to the rights of others who oppose them. They want is to silence all people of faith and outlaw the bible which clearly teaches God's commandments that homosexuality is wrong. In essence, they want to challenge God, what arrogance! That is what is at the crux of these rulings and our wimpy courts go along like the trained sheep they are trampling on the rights of the majority to serve the vocal minority. The solution was simple, just get another person to perform the gay union ceremony but the gays didn't want to stop there. Time to challenge this procedure of allowing the courts to set the laws of this country instead of the House of Commons.

Jenna
said

I draw an analogy between the fact that, just a little over a hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote because they had no legal identity of their own, being either the legal property of the father, or, upon marriage, the husband. The idea of women having rights was considered heresy back then, just as homosexual marriage is considered heresy today.

Trevor in the Hat
said

We (supposedly) have a seperation of church and state. If you don't want to do your taxpayer paid government job because of religious convictions, then you should just quit your job. NGL says that gays/lesbians are not looking for equality because they don't want anyone opposing them. Isn't that the same thing you are doing by saying they should not be allowed to be married because the bible speaks against it? Not everyone believes in the bible and what it says.

Sober, Newmnarket
said

The bias is clearly in favour of gays and lesbians who can now force other persons to violate their own conscience. What a sad day for freedom in Canada. One wonders why they don't form their own institutions to marry them and leave other people to enjoy their freedoms. Force and freedom just don't go together.

Ben Hanhart
said

What has this country become? So now if I'm a marriage commissioner and a Christian I must now violate the instructions given by God? What's next, are we going to make pastors and clergymen do the same? This is rapidly becoming a country that has little in common with its people.

Happy Canadian
said

Y'all need to read this article again.The position is a provincial, puplic service, not a private organization (religion). Taking the position means abiding by the statutes of public service and the law of the land.Don't like the duties, don't take on the job. Don't like the change? You have every opportunity to move on.I am not a supporter of same sex "legal union", but the law of the land allows it.

Richard in New Brunswick
said

Those who cannot understand and accept the meaning of EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL need to seriously examine their values for the bigotry and prejudices that lurk there and then purge this blackness from their hearts. Public servants, paid for from the public purse, are there to serve ALL citizens without reference to their personally held discriminations. Anyone who disagrees is not eligible to the honourable designation of Canadian citizen. All that said, look closely at the last line of the article "decision not legally binding." May I ask what in blazes is the point of asking a court of law for a decision when you're under no obligation to follow that decision?

URU
said

I thought that we were living a civilized world but I guess not. Isn't restricting and imposing laws upon cittizens called "Communism" which our Gov't (the West) is trying to export their "Democracy" around the world? From what I see and read, our Gov't isn't that liberal after all, it's really a combination of "Demo-Comm" to keep society in check with little freedom.

RGBrook
said

How wonderful that NGL wants to educate us regarding God's law! When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I will simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination - End of debate. Perhaps NGL could clarify a few other biblical teachings for me though, like can I still burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice? I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9), but the people living near the church will complain of the stink I'm sure. My neighbour wants to sell his daughter into slavery as suggested in Exodus 21:7. What's the going rate these days? I know that contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24) is strictly taboo. Are you supposed to ask first? What happens if she lies? Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around me. Does that include Mexico? Exodus 35:2 clearly states that those who work on the sabbath should be put to death, but it doesn't state exactly how we should kill them. Eating shellfish is also an abomination (Lev. 10:10), but is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality or about the same? Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I wear glasses for astigmatism. Must I worship from home?I know you'll have the answers NGL, so I eagerly await your wisdom, and thanks for keeping us up to date on God's eternal and unchanging word.

WesternGuy
said

Good for the court.

If you don't want to marry people, gay or not, don't become a marriage commissioner. Simple.

Go back to Saudi Arabia or Iran or whatever hell hole you come from where persecuting Gays is OK.

Even though I'm from a christian background I find these people sick in the head and offensive for refusing to let two people in love get married.

So happy I live in Canada and not some Christian/Islamic theocracy where "holy books" overrule human rights

concerned Canadian
said

This is definately a heavy handed ruling. Forcing commissioners to wed against their beliefs or forcing them to quit over this is favouring the gay/lesbian agenda. What I can't understand is if someone says no to wedding a couple there must be other commissioners willing to wed a gay couple. Forcing those with religious convictions to wed a gay couple is not democracy.

Porch Spoon Tapper Miss Jiggy Wiggy
said

How long will it be before someone demands that they can marry their dog?

Marlene
said

The only reason religion discriminates against homosexuals is because "normally" they don't give birth to families and keep the religious institution with a steady stream of getting their 10% cut of cash $$$.00. Religion is a busines$. But God is real. Religion picks its favs (favourites) but God loves all of us.

ITS NOT RIGHT
said

This ruling violates the religious rights of the commissioners who cannot in good conscience perform homosexual marriages. Once again the rights of the majority are squashed by the gay agenda with the help of the courts. Where are our Parliamentarians? I have no problem with a commissioner saying no to performing homosexual marriages and pass it off to another commissioner but this way the courts squash the rights of individual commissioner to work unless they agree with homosexual marriages and deny their good conscience. This stinks.

Ladeda
said

Isn't it more unconstitutional to force a person to act against his/her moral convictions than it is for same sex couples to have to find someone who is willing to perform the ceremony? It seems that under the guise of human rights, the government is taking more and more of our freedom away - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and in this case the freedom to refuse.

dsm
said

gays are out there face it, its a part of life, doesnt bother me at all.why not let them get married if they want to. what is the big deal. they should get the same rights as everyone else out there.

Syl
said

So called 'same-sex' marriage (as it can never really be a marriage regardless of what our courts say) to a lot of us, is a crime (sin if you will) against, nature, man and God and to force anyone to perform this same-sex marriage against their will, is only compounding the travisty.

Rushina Limbow
said

God loves all of his creations and God didn't make mistakes. God is an artist, a masterpiece maker and be it Gay, Straight, Whatever...we all belong to God and have a right to God's blessings. Nobody is any better than the other and to say otherwise makes you guilty of "using" God...."yes" using God to further your own hatred and nasty inner-self. Shame on you!

Ted Hull
said

This ruling by implication means that commissioners not only must marry gay and lesbian couples as requested, but theycannot withdraw from being commissioners. If a commissioner were to withdraw from being a commissioner, according to this ruling that would itself undermine the rights of gays and lesbians.

Protect everyones rights, not just minority groups
said

"gay and lesbian rights advocacy group Egale Canada countered that, despite the compromise provision, such a law would inevitably erode equality rights." ........So they believe it is alright to erode the rights of another to enforce [that is what they are doing - forcing another to bow to their belief] their position upon them. HYPOCRISY knows no bounds...and they hide behind the word "equality." Shame on Egale Canada

Kevin D.
said

There is a difference between forcing a religous minister to provide a marriage ceremony and a public department employee to do it. If someone wants to be paid by the government then they cannot discriminate towards anyone requesting the services of that department. Now if the gay couple was trying to force a minister to provide this service I would agree that the minister, rabbi, reverand, imam (etc.) should not be forced to perform that service.

Aitchpb
said

People are completely missing the point here. Gay men and women aren't asking people to change their beliefs or forcing anyone to do anything against their will. Persons are still entitle to dislike and disapprove of individual behavior.....in PRIVATE.

This, however, is completely different. The person in question held is a PUBLIC official. As such, he can NOT deny anyone to whom the law has granted access.

If someone's religion stated they could not marry a black person, or Asian, or a different religion. Any of these situations would be unacceptable.

However, any PRIVATE religious institution has complete authority to refuse service to whomever they choose e.g. a Jewish rabbi normally will not marry anyone unless both persons are Jewish.

This is not the case when it comes to PUBLIC services. Public means just that, public, granted to all.

LCG
said

Wow....amazing comments. Refusing to call the "ceremony" a "wedding" because it's same-sex. And the traditional unions are so good, is that right? With a 50% divorce rate, I think not. It seems that the people opposed to any rights for gays and lesbians are doing so based on religious beliefs. Go back to your archaic churches with your pedophile bishops and priests. Read from your bibles that were penned by men.....it could very well be the greatest work of fiction ever.

Elizabeth M
said

If religious institutions of "all" stripes do the business of marriage then it should be open to "everyone" with the desire to marry to use their institutions to perform the service. As it stands now with religious institutions it's like a restaurant in the 1950s deciding that they will serve only white people but not black people. This clearly violates the constitution. Time to get with the times!

Mat
said

Well I recall that the gay and lesbian argument a number of years ago was that they didn't want to trample on anybody else's rights, they only wanted to be "equal". I also seem to recall that the other side said that this would happen if gay marriage went forward. It would appear that the other side was right and the gay and lesbian community was not honest about their motives....it would appear that they really do want to be more equal than others. Simply referring them to someone else ought not to be a problem...unless of course you wish to trample all over somebody else's "rights". But then again, if you are not gay or lesbian...it would appear that you don't have any.

JB
said

What is a reference case? How does it not being legally binding affect those commissioners in Saskatchewan who may choose not to perform one of these ceremonies?

Me too
said

Seeing as the person in question is a representative of the Province... he should do what he was hired for... If you're personal convictions cause you to be unable to do your job, what are my taxes paying your salary for? What a waste of money.

H.S.
said

While on the one hand I believe in the acceptance of gay marriage, on the other hand I do believe people have a right to avoid things based on their (stupid) beliefs if they so choose.. however.I don't believe people in any position other than religious institutions have the right to reject clientelle based on religious grounds: ie, if a pharmacist is a fundie, they can't just choose to stop supplying birth control pills.Marriage commissioners provide a public, civil service. If you don't like gay marriage, you're in the wrong job.. and you shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose. Gay marriage is legal in Canada, so suck it up, or go join a church clergy.

RJ in Halifax
said

If you are willing to accept a paycheque from the public service, then you should be expected to perform all legally-mandated duties of your position. To allow any public servant to "pick and choose" which duties they will enforce, based solely on religious grounds, would set a very dangerous precedent. If allowed, would a police officer whose religious beliefs prevent him/her from taking a life be justified in not taking down someone who is shooting into a crowd of people?

Geoff in Lethbridge
said

Why should 98 percent of the people have to lose rights so that 2 percent can have extra rights that those 98 percent aren't interested in having? Minorities should not be tyrants over the majority. Accommodation should mean they accept being referred. Do linguistic minorities have the right to expect everyone to speak their language, or can they accept referrals?

M. Rich
said

If you have a government job, you must provide service to all citizens, regardless of your personal biases or beliefs. Marriage commissioners are civil servants and cannot discriminate. On the other hand, ministers, priests, imams and rabbis are welcome to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, and can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Perfectly reasonable to me.

Paul ~ Kitchener
said

Just another "Political Blow" to the head of "All Bible Believing Christians". To have the court, demand a commissioner, that is a Bible Believing person, disobey his religious beliefs is - "Dictatorial". There is no such thing as a "Marriage" for homosexuals or lesbians, as this is an "Act of the Christian Church" - NOT THE STATE. The state can practice, and act out anything they like, but, they can not enforce their statutes on "The Church". Let the crown do as they mandate, and let "The Church" carry out its mandate from God. "The Church" is attacked from all sides, even within its own organization, but, when the Government helps, it makes being "Christians" a "Marked Society".

Ed
said

Denying someone the right to refuse to marry someone, while allowing someone else the right to get married - even if by another officiatn - is just unethical. Seriously, there are tons of people who can officiate - why 'pick' on those who have beliefs counter to yours? We all have our own beliefs - why not respect each others equally!

Tim in Ottawa
said

Maybe, instead, it's the fact that the court is recognizing the separation of Church and State. Your religious rights allow you to attend your Church and practice your beliefs on your time. When you are paid to represent the will of the state, you are contractually bound to uphold those initiatives. And no, we gays are not trying to subdue religion, we are trying to keep it out of the public sphere, where it doesn't belong.

Chris in Kingston
said

Why can't we just have a civil union (with the exact same entitlements as marriage) for same-sex couples, and marriage for opposite-sex couples? It really solves both problems. You can't force an officiant to perform a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs, lets get real here. Give gay couples the same rights and entitlements as other couples, just don't start trying to change entire religions. Let them be intolerant if they want, that's their right.

Bernadette
said

I agree with the judge; Sorry but I still don't agree with the same sex marriage. In my opinion they can live together but be qualified is a couple is against to my morals, values, and doesn't make since to me.

Moral Majority
said

I can�t believe this is even up for debate! Forcing someone to do something that is against their beliefs and convictions is a far more heinous crime than a same sex couple having to find another officiant to perform their ceremony (Due to MY personal beliefs I refuse to call it a wedding.) Binding two people together is a powerful and solemn act, and it is shameful that a group (Gays) that has been so persecuted and marginalised even in recent memory would be so callous in enforcing their ideals on others with moral and ethical convictions. Shameful.

NGL
said

Gays and Lesbians aren't looking for equality. What they are looking for is to subdue religion. After all the bible does speak out against their sexual orientation, therefore they must subdue and conquer this opposition. For them there can be no opposing voices and that smacks of superiorism not equality. Everything and everyone has some opposition in this life, but they want none.

Today's Top Stories

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor waits for the start of his sentencing judgement in the courtroom of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Leidschendam, near The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday May 30, 2012. (AP / Toussaint Kluiters)

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: