Should a marriage commissioner have the right to refuse homosexual couples?

[bustybbwlover]

since it's a public office and gay marriage is legal i'd say no on the right to refuse...i have to do shit i dislike at work (as does everyone) i don't get to cherry pick the parts of a job i enjoy

 

[Member442]

I do. Get over it. We've always been here and always will be and we're not going to go away because some religious fucktard thinks we're evil. Just grow up

I'm not saying this to anyone in specific :1orglaugh

Well yes that would work but as we see most people don't grow up sadly

 

[meesterperfect]

of course.
but question: are they considered self employed?
because if they are employed by a government agency and that government allows gay marriage then he/she must follow the law.
if they are private individuals performing a service then of course they have that right.

again, i amaze myself with my powers of clear, logical reasoning.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

of course.
but question: are they considered self employed?
because if they are employed by a government agency and that government allows gay marriage then he/she must follow the law.
if they are private individuals performing a service then of course they have that right.

again, i amaze myself with my powers of clear, logical reasoning.

The way I understand it is that there are two types of people here who can perform marriages:

The marriage commissioner is considered a civil servant and performs marriages in the name of the courts, so they have to obey the law on this one.

The priests that obtained marriage licences and perform marriages in the name of the church, but they are not actually considered to be under the employment of the government and are free to approve/deny whoever they want.

 

[Hot Mega]

The way I understand it is that there are two types of people here who can perform marriages:

The marriage commissioner is considered a civil servant and performs marriages in the name of the courts, so they have to obey the law on this one.

The priests that obtained marriage licences and perform marriages in the name of the church, but they are not actually considered to be under the employment of the government and are free to approve/deny whoever they want.

That's reasonable and the way it should be IMO.

I don't see it as forcing anyone to do anything. It's a simple matter of, the job is now this. Can you do it? If 'no' (meaning you are unwilling or able to) then this job is no longer a right fit for you.

The g'ment's position would and should be they need someone who can service all of the community which pays their salaries. Not send people over to the next town or state (province..sorry) because of some employee's personal beliefs. The g'ment is there to serve their community...not the other way around.

 

[BadNewsBewes]

No he shouldn't not if it infringes on the human rights of the "homo couples" as you so lovingly put it. . .

Homo is a shortened word for homosexual, just as brit is short for british etc. I'm not religious, but I don't believe in gay marriages. what do they say at the ceremony - I now pronounce you husband and husband?

The way I understand it is that there are two types of people here who can perform marriages:

The marriage commissioner is considered a civil servant and performs marriages in the name of the courts, so they have to obey the law on this one.

The priests that obtained marriage licences and perform marriages in the name of the church, but they are not actually considered to be under the employment of the government and are free to approve/deny whoever they want.

I believe this to be true, church marriages by a priest will not have to follow government guidelines, so the decision will be at their discretion. I doubt many would approve.

However civil marriages in a registary office will approve gay marriages as a legal partnership.

 

[meesterperfect]

The way I understand it is that there are two types of people here who can perform marriages:

The marriage commissioner is considered a civil servant and performs marriages in the name of the courts, so they have to obey the law on this one.

The priests that obtained marriage licences and perform marriages in the name of the church, but they are not actually considered to be under the employment of the government and are free to approve/deny whoever they want.

well there you go.
the answer.
:hatsoff:

 

[LukeEl]

Slow down the gays are getting married now? I should tell this to dirk, no more lonely nights for us.

 

[Shifty]

Here's a debate topic for all you smart and mature people on this board:

And what do you think? Personally, I'm all for allowing the commissioners to refuse to marry people on religious grounds. It's a strange phenomenon were we can allow members of minority languages in Canada to walk around carrying ceremonial knives and to take a break from work to pray, but when it comes to the largest-demographic in Canada we can't be bothered to allow them anything. It's completely assinine to think that a gay couple can force someone who is uncomfortable with their relationship to do anything and it is an invasion of their freedom.

So the question here really is this: Who's rights trump the other's?

There is no trumping involved IMO.

I think it fair and just to allow someone the option to refuse to marry someone based on personal beliefs (vs. 'religious' grounds), just as it is fair to allow homosexuals to marry.

If a homosexual couple is turned away by one commissioner, then they are free to find another.

 

[Boothbabe]

Homo is a shortened word for homosexual, just as brit is short for british etc. I'm not religious, but I don't believe in gay marriages. what do they say at the ceremony - I now pronounce you husband and husband.

At our wedding the marriage commisioner said; I now pronounce you wife and wife :nanner:

But seriously, is that the only argument you can think of? Don't you think it's time you stop holding on to the traditional view of marriage? It's a not a union of man and woman but of two people who love each other. Why do you want to deny gay people the right you were born with?

 

[TheOrangeCat]

In a word - No.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

There is no trumping involved IMO.

There is, actually. What I find so dissapointing about this decision is that the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan has decided that it is alright to ignore the religious rights of people in the province in order to once again protect those of another group. I understand the desire for equality of all peoples by the courts, but quite simply their decision is the wrong one; however, unfortunately, limiting people's religious rights is legal in this country.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I think a religious marriage official should be able to refuse gay couples marriage, but gay people should still be able to get married outside of a religion.

 

[mrtrebus]

There is, actually. What I find so dissapointing about this decision is that the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan has decided that it is alright to ignore the religious rights of people in the province in order to once again protect those of another group. I understand the desire for equality of all peoples by the courts, but quite simply their decision is the wrong one; however, unfortunately, limiting people's religious rights is legal in this country.

Religious rights are always correctly secondary when these rights involve bigotry & discrimination.

I think a religious marriage official should be able to refuse gay couples marriage, but gay people should still be able to get married outside of a religion.

So you agree with discrimination!
Wonderful! :nono:
What other bigotry should religious people be allowed to get away with? Just because they believe in some invisible man in the sky?

 

[BadNewsBewes]

At our wedding the marriage commisioner said; I now pronounce you wife and wife :nanner:

But seriously, is that the only argument you can think of? Don't you think it's time you stop holding on to the traditional view of marriage? It's a not a union of man and woman but of two people who love each other. Why do you want to deny gay people the right you were born with?

Forgive my scepticism, but there is no point in me arguing with you. I don't believe you are a 'hot lesbian' mooching around on this forum. You are not shy to post your face, so feel free though to prove me otherwise with fansigns for other members or a free0nes sign.

I am not denying gay people anything. I just said I don't believe in it. I am young but still have traditional values. If gays, lesbians are allowed to get married, it makes no difference to me.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I think a religious marriage official should be able to refuse gay couples marriage, but gay people should still be able to get married outside of a religion.

Well, technically this is guarentees that they can. I don't think marriage ceremonies held in court are religious.

Forgive my scepticism, but there is no point in me arguing with you. I don't believe you are a 'hot lesbian' mooching around on this forum. You are not shy to post your face, so feel free though to prove me otherwise with fansigns for other members or a free0nes sign.

Stay on the topic please. I'd rather not have my thread turn into another "let's stare accusingly at Boothbabe-fest" again.

 

[D-rock]

If he is a government employee or a civil servant then he shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do the functions of his job on religious grounds. If he has a problem with that he needs to get a different job. Could you imagine if a firefighter refused to put out a house fire of somebody that practiced a different culture or lifestyle than he did on the grounds of some religious belief he had? I don't see this situation as any more legitimate than something like that.

 

[Shifty]

There is, actually. What I find so dissapointing about this decision is that the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan has decided that it is alright to ignore the religious rights of people in the province in order to once again protect those of another group. I understand the desire for equality of all peoples by the courts, but quite simply their decision is the wrong one; however, unfortunately, limiting people's religious rights is legal in this country.

Yes PM, there is as far as the actual decision goes.

I mean that in my mind, there should be no decision made based on religious grounds. An individual should be free to decide not to participate in a marriage process if they are not comfortable doing so, just as a homosexual should be free to marry if they so choose.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Religious rights are always correctly secondary when these rights involve bigotry & discrimination.


So you agree with discrimination!
Wonderful! :nono:
What other bigotry should religious people be allowed to get away with? Just because they believe in some invisible man in the sky?

This doesn't mean they can't get married, just means they can't get married by that particular religion.
I'm not saying that I agree with discrimination. After all, God created the gays: (or, to use the politcally correct term: Marmite miners) too, right? But if a religion refuses to marry 'em, what are you going to do? Force them?

You don't choose to believe in God, you just do.
Same way you don't choose to be straight. You just are.

To force churches to marry gays (or, to use the politcally correct term: MiG 15s) is on a par with forcing gays (or, to use the politcally correct term: shirtlifters) to go to church.
Only when you have the right to do one do you have the right to do the offer. And the prospect of forcing gays (or, to use the politcally correct term: Wuffters) to go to church seems ridiculous to me.

I'm open to debate if you can think of a way around the problem. :dunno:

Well, technically this is guarentees that they can. I don't think marriage ceremonies held in court are religious.



Stay on the topic please. I'd rather not have my thread turn into another "let's stare accusingly at Boothbabe-fest" again.

Just saw this post... I'd like to reiterate that I have no objections to nancy boys (or, to use the politically correct term: gays) marrying.

 

[mrtrebus]

You don't choose to believe in God, you just do.
Same way you don't choose to be straight. You just are.
:

Wrong. You do choose to believe in God.