Monday, October 16, 2006

A transgendered, divorced Catholic walks into a bar ...


Picking up where we left off in our ongoing series of "Why people who support Canada's proposed 'Defence of Religions' Act are hypocritical morons," if you need to come up to speed, I suggest quickly perusing Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. It won't take long, and I'm sure you can catch up with the rest of us in short order.

Now, as we've already established beyond any possible doubt, DoRA has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting freedom of religious expression or freedom of speech in Canada. Rather, that hypothetical legislation is incredibly poorly-disguised gay bashing by intolerant, homophobic, Bible-whomping, Canadian bigots. But that's not why we're here. Intead, we're here to point out some probably unintentional side effects of that Act if it ever passes.

Note that the whole point of DoRA is to allow, among other things, publicly-funded marriage commissioners to refuse to marry same-sex couples since doing so would offend their delicate, religious sensibilities. But why stop there?

What about, say, a Catholic marriage commissioner who is deeply disturbed (pun sort of intended) about performing a ceremony involving a previously-divorced Catholic? Or an evangelical who is adamantly opposed to joining together, in the eyes of God, someone who has previously had an abortion? Or a fundamentalist who can't abide the notion of marrying a couple, one of which is an avowed atheist? Or a Jewish commissioner who is horrified by the thought of a Jew marrying a Gentile?

Oh, my, there would appear to be no end to what might religiously "offend" any given marriage commissioner (against which they must naturally be "protected"), which would make the chore of finding an amenable official a real crapshoot, wouldn't it? "Um, hi, I'm a twice-divorced Catholic who's had an abortion and is pro-choice, and I want to marry a transgendered, illegal immigrant named Ricardo. Are you OK with that? Um ... hello? Hello? Damn."

Where would it end, if everyone had the right to drag their personal religious bigotries into it? And the solution? Quite obvious, really. You have a public job and are on the public payroll? Then you do the damned job or get the fuck out. What could be simpler? And, need I add, fairer?

In our next installment: Oh, those wacky Biblical marriage laws.

OH, IRONY OF IRONIES
. There's something pants-wettingly funny about the Canadian wingnut-o-sphere moaning on and on about DoRA and how their delicate, religious sensibilities need to be protected, then having one of the most deranged among them publish a post accusing others of being crybabies.

I'm not sure what I would do without the Blogging Tories. Find my jaw-dropping stupidity somewhere else, I suppose.

PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING. I'm not sure whether I should take seriously this from the first commenter "anonymous":

There's nothing that says that the Act has to be that open-ended. It could be written to be very specific and just allow religious people to opt out of performing same-sex marriages based on their religious objections, and nothing more.

That proposal is so inanely illogical that it's hard to believe the writer is not a troll but, what the heck, let's deal with it.

It's amusing to suggest that all of the problems I've listed could be bypassed if DoRA were written so specifically and so narrowly that it would address just that single issue for that single demographic.

Remember that, historically, it's been the Far Right who have howled loud and long about how extending non-discrimination protection based on sexual orientation would constitute a "special privilege" and yet, in the next breath, they propose to introduce legislation that is the textbook definition of a "special privilege" -- a right that would be extended exclusively to them and available to no one else.

I have to believe this is just someone trolling for the entertainment value. The thought that someone would make this suggestion in all seriousness is just too scary, even for me.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your argument is bogus. There's nothing that says that the Act has to be that open-ended. It could be written to be very specific and just allow religious people to opt out of performing same-sex marriages based on their religious objections, and nothing more. And if it's done that way, your argument collapses completely, doesn't it?

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, nice try also there pal. Why not call this piece of crap what it is then, the right to discriminate and by-pass anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws instead of religion. This has nothing to do with religion if it is going to be that closed surrounding only gay people. Religion covers a multitude of issues and if I say, didn't want to serve a fundamentalist because he offends my atheism, then DoRA ought to cover it. By the way, most gay couples wouldn't go to a bigot to get married anyway, so this whole moronic thing is a waste of everyone's time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Since the talking points that Vic Toews spouted were clearly derived from Ted Morton's argument, there is an existing draft piece of legislation that reflects the key points of what Toews is apt to put forth. It's right here

The problem with something like "DoRA" is that it ultimately places "freedom of religion" above other rights guaranteed in the Charter. The Charter does not stipulate any form of precedence with regards to rights.

The fact that Toews would more or less trot out exactly the same bullshit that Ted Morton spews suggests strongly that they are going to make (more or less) the same bullshit piece of legislation.

The only thing that is hypothetical is the precise wording that Toews would use, but I don't think Toews is "more moderate" than Morton - they're both hardliners.

M@ said...

So, Anonymous, when the legislation is drafted and it looks just like Morton's bill, you'll come back and tell us you're a total dickhead, right? That's why you commented anonymously, I assume?

Nice try.

Anonymous said...

It could be written to be very specific and just allow religious people to opt out of performing same-sex marriages based on their religious objections

*Argh!* Bill C-38 did this very explicitly. Go read the !~@#$! legislation.

Scotian said...

CC:

Good point, and one I made to both my wife and parents over Thanksgiving weekend when we discussed this particular example of social conservative bigotry being pandered to. My folks are RC, almost Irish Catholic in their faith and we came up with all kinds of religious exceptions that could be used just by a RC JoP to deny marriages to heterosexual couples of differing Faiths and even simply differing sects within Christianity itself.

This act is clearly designed to pander to the homophobic element of their base, it is not intended to protect religion, especially since religion is already protected by the Charter. Your anonymous poster at the topic of this thread unfortunately reflects a view I have seen from people serious about the need for this, so be afraid. It is this mentality which causes most progressives to oppose the Harper CPC so strongly and to have such grave concerns for the future of this country if they ever got unchecked (majority government) power.

It is as you said very simple, you work for the secular government you abide by the parameters that the law requires of secular government. If you cannot do that for whatever reason then you quit/get fired, what you do not get is special rights to practice your freedoms at the expense of other Canadian citizen's rights/freedoms. You are quite correct to characterize anonymous' post as a classic example of a special interest group demanding special rights, which is something I have watched the religious right do for years regarding gay rights. They claim it is the gays wanting special rights for them when in truth it is the gays wanting their proper EQUAL rights and it is the religious right that wants the special rights to be able to deny the gays their equal rights.

Classic wingnut projection and hypocrisy in action, what a shock (dust dry tone).

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous,

What mail order catalogue did your law degree come from? And did you get fries with that, or just a beany baby?