PM set to overrule court if it forces gay marriage on churches (Canada)

[David__77]

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court ruled that churches had to perform gay marriages.

"Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would ever use the clause.

"I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a right," he said, explaining that it would be used only under extreme circumstances.

...

Martin, a devout Roman Catholic, has said he supports gays rights legislation, but religious institutions should not be bound to it.

...

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=378B19C1-B35F-42B3-8ECC-29B422F99F79

(I think that ultimately the same rule should apply to churches who refuse to perform interracial marriages. If churches must perform interracial marriage, then they should also have to perform same-gender marriages. No one is forcing a minister to be an agent issuing government marriage licenses.)

[beyurslf]

1. Now I support gay marriage

but why should a religious institution be forced to perform them? My church growing up woouldn't marry people unless they completed a class and were "approved" by the preacher. They should have that right.

[7th_Sephiroth]

15. churches shouldent be forced

but this brings up a dangerous part of canadian law, can a complete madman, should he ever take the PM chair, create a totalitarian goverment, and/or throw out laws protecting peoples rights on a whim?

[GainesT1958]

2. No church should be "forced" by a government to perform a service...

That's against its beliefs, just as no child in public school should be forced to recite a "state-approved" spoken prayer before class every morning!x(

To me, that's like telling the Catholic Church they can't preach against abortion...I may disagree with their opposition to abortion, and so their opposition to a woman's right to choose, but it's their right to feel--and to say--whatever they want to about it within the bounds and esconces of their religion--including their churches, monasteries and church schools.

I agree with Paul Martin on this one, all the way...that sounds a bit like Canada's version of an "Executive Order" that our president can sign.

He wants freedom of religion in Canada, and so do I...just as I want it respected in the U.S.!

B-)

[David__77]

5. I agree with you...

Churches should not be forces to marry any two people they don't want to, for whatever reason. I'm in the US, and that's the way it should be here. I don't know about Canada's laws. All I stated is that denying same-sex marriages is discriminatory and that denying interracial marriages is discriminatory. I disagree with it and criticize it, but it's their right to do so. The laws should be equal with respect to these, that's all.

I agree that churches should be able to be discriminatory, though not in their social services such as health care and so forth. Then they should comply with relevant law.

It is an interesting debate though: would you have a problem (legally) with a Nazi church minister having a license to perform marriages and only doing so with white couples? I wonder, is THAT legal? Just wondering?

[glarius]

3. Both of the answers above I agree with!

Churches must be free to have their own rules....Martin is doing this correctly...

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. So the PM can simply veto any Supreme Court decision?

Can the Parliament override his decision?:shrug:

[Hand]

14. Sort of...

Welcome to the world's weirdest constitution.

The Canadian constitution contains something called the "Notwitstanding Clause". It's complex to explain in detail, but basically it means that a legislature can pass a law "notwithstanding" the fact that this law contravenes a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of what that new law provides.

So if the Supreme Court of Canada rules that churches must perform same-sex marriages, Martin can "invoke the Notwithstanding Clause" and table a law that says churches can refuse to do so. Since Canada has a parliamentary system (essentially a democratically elected dictatorship), the legislative body (House of Commons) will then pass the new law, "notwithstanding" its direct contravention of a Supreme Court ruling. And it becomes law.

I think that the provincial legislatures can do the same. If I recall correctly, the Notwithstanding Clause was originally intended to win Quebec's endorsement of the constitution back in 1982. That was when Trudeau "repatriated" the Canadian consitution--that is, took possession of it for Canada to adopt, amend, and apply. Previously, it had been kept in Britain. I'm hazy on exactly what that meant, but rest assured, it was weird.

Anyway, the Notwithstanding Clause has rarely been invoked. Ralph Klein, the scummy alcoholic right-wing oilpatch premier of Alberta, who's a first-class swine and arsehole, has promised to invoke it for Alberta when the gay marriage law is passed.

There's a pretty good explanation of the clause here.

:wtf:

[David__77]

6. Question to all: should churches have to perform interracial marriages?

Just wondering people's responses.

[David__77]

8. A note...

In my original posting, I was being, I admit, "provocative." I don't think that a church should have to perform same-sex marriages, or forces to perform interracial marriages, either.

I was making a parellel because I think people need to be a bit more outraged that there are not equal rights for same-sex couples. They need to view it in the light of civil rights. No one would dare defend laws banning interracial marrages these days, but many liberal-minded people still don't get it on same-sex marriage. Churches should be allowed to do whatever they want on this issue, BUT they should be CRITICIZED just as surely as if they were denying an interracial marriage. That is, though, a political and not a legal question.

[WildClarySage]

9. Unfortunately,

I know a few who would ban interracial marriage. :(

[Holly]

10. I'm glad that

you clarified your post...I was wondering. And I agree, this is a civil/human right issue and the reason that Canada is changing the law. Two Supreme Court decisions have ruled that banning same-sex marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[glarius]

11. Since you clarified, I agree they should be criticized but not legally

forced to marry....That is an important distinction!:)

[Rainbowreflect]

13. No, if you don't agree with the stand a church takes on an issue

you don't need to be a member. I would not be a member of a church that did not allow gay marriage or interracial marriage.

[Holly]

7. I'm with PM Martin all the way

on this. The court/government should never dictate church doctine, and the church must not interfere in the legislative process.

[davidinalameda]

12. churches shouldn't be forced

but it's just one more thing that the churches can bitch about

anyway, there are plenty of ministers and churches in Canada willing to perform the ceremonies

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. Martin is wrong on this. You cannot force a churce to support.....

such a controversial issue. The church had it's own traditions too.

[Holly]

17. That's what Martin is saying

he would use the use the notwithstanding clause to overrule any potential court decision that forces the church to perform same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage will be legal in Canada...the church will not be forced to perform it.

[Spazito]

18. I agree with Martin on this...

the separation of church and state is very important. The key is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which does not allow the state to discriminate by disallowing civil unions of same-sex couples. We have had two rulings on this already.

Because the right-wing are homophobic, they use the faux argument that it is a church matter and as long as we allow them to use that it will remain more contentious than merited, imo.