I got into a discussion with my significant other's family over the Gay Marriage issue. They're strongly Catholic, but they are also very strongly in favor of Gay marriage, so to some degree it wasn't so much a discussion as an agreement; but we did cover some very interesting ground in that chat.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment