A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner is being rapped by the Human Rights tribunal for refusing to be there for a same-sex marriage ceremony on the grounds of religious belief. Despite being one of the many commissioners in Regina, I don't think I can side with his cause.
Were his actions related to a wholly private practice the couple in question wouldn't stand a chance: business is business. However when applying to be a marriage commissioner one signs up to performing marriages in accordance with existing law. It becomes a public service, and religious belief can't come into play here.
Delivering a public service doesn't just mean you get paid by the government. My definition of it includes any situation where someone accepts to perform a duty on behalf of the government, paid or not. Therefore refusing to put a stamp on a lawful union is something he could not do. There are many professions and duties one can perform keeping his or her faith in mind. Government-sanctioned positions do not belong in that list.
9 comments:
I don't necessarily agree with you on this. If he was a commissioner before the gay marriage law came into effect, I think he has the right to refuse.
If he became one afterwards, then there might be an issue.
Agree with BillyJack 101%
I agree with Luca. No other provider of services (except a religious organization) would be entitled to discriminate as such and nor should marriage commissioners.
Priests, pastors, rabbis, imam's, etc. can refuse. Marriage commissioners can not.
I would have to say i agree with Luca and KC but only at a very superficial level.
I believe that the appropriateness of sanctioning a gay marriage fundamentally has a moral component that goes deeper than what is or is not passed into law by the House of Commons.
Let's not forget that homosexuality itself was only legalized 30 years ago and the idea of government sanctioned gay marriage is not even uniformly accepted in other countries.
Many people in Canada still believe that the government has no business sanctioning gay marriage and thus I believe it is appropriate for a government worker to refuse.
I am not against gay marriage, per say, but I do not want to see the government sanctioning it.
Bottom line, morality and governance are not mutually exclusive, and thus this commissioner has grounds to refuse to abide by an arguably unjust law.
Thanks a lot for the great comments! I agree with BillyJack's point too, should the laws change the government should offer those licensed under the old law the chance to opt out.
I also agree it isn't federal duty to legislate morals. Provinces should have this jurisdiction, considering regional diversity of stances on the subject.
Still, he could have said he'd be out of town that day!
You can be an atheist and not agree with gay marriage versus a civil union. I think you should be able to decline even if you are not religious.
absolutely, but not as a provider of a public service.... Private employers, for instance, choose among many job applicants according to many criteria, and ultimately things which may be deemed discriminatory can weigh in. But that's a tactic that backfires: by not hiring the most talented workers you're bound to be overtaken b the competition that hires them :)
And the "couple" involved picked this commissioner because.......
I smell a set up here.
There are many professions and duties one can perform keeping his or her faith in mind. Government-sanctioned positions do not belong in that list.
Actually, the list gets shorter every day. Occupations as diverse as marriage commissioners, teachers, printers, doctors, politicians, pastors, and innkeepers are just a few of the professions where HRCs and PC media have demanded that a person's beliefs be left at the door. Trouble is, that one's faith isn't worth much if it can be discarded when situations require.
So, despite the obvious availability of alternatives to get the "ceremony" performed, somehow this career civil servant is forced to take a stand. Predictably, two "offended" activists then win a complain (without cost to them) in front of a HRC.
Religious belief and marriage are inextricably linked to many persons with a religious faith. Interesting that Christians are primarily the defenders to those offended in these kangaroo courts.
Post a Comment