I guess we better get used to the Far Right whining on this. Via The Next Agenda, we have this report from the CTV on the heart-rending story of those downtrodden, persecuted Christians:
Same-sex marriage controversy flares in Sask.
The rights of a same-sex couple to marry faced off Wednesday against the rights of a Saskatchewan marriage commissioner who said he couldn't perform the service because of religious beliefs.
One of the gay men told a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that he was "crushed" when Orville Nichols refused to perform the wedding...
Nichols said Wednesday that had the same-sex marriage law been in place when he became a marriage commissioner in 1983, he would not have taken the job.
Now here's the important part (all emphasis added):
A lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, the agency responsible for receiving discrimination complaints, said marriage commissioners are required by law to provide civil wedding services.
"It's a service which has no religious connotations whatsoever," Janice Gingell said during a break at the hearing.
"It's specifically designed to take place outside of the framework of religious institutions."
"The marriage commissioner in this case is actually acting as an agent of the state," said Gingell. "He has one job - that particular job is to do a civil marriage ceremony outside the context of religion."
I'm guessing that one of the arguments that you'll be hearing on a regular basis is that, when bigots like Nichols originally took the job of marriage commissioner, it was understood exactly what his duties entailed and he was quite happy to perform those duties, but now the rules have changed in an unexpected way, and he's being asked to go beyond the original parameters of the job and that's just not fair.
Crap. Pure, unadulterated crap.
As anyone can read, the duties of a marriage commissioner are simple and straightforward -- you marry two people who are, by the laws of Canada, legally entitled to get married. That's it, and that's all.
The fact that the legal definition of "marriage" in Canada might change is not in any way even remotely relevant or significant to this argument. Nichols was previously willing to do his job as he originally accepted it, and now he isn't under exactly the same conditions.
There's no controversy here. Nichols refuses to perform his official duties, so fire his worthless, sorry ass and let's move on.
We have an opening for you, Orville. Don't slam it on the way out.
FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: One of the grating claims that's frequently made in cases like this is that bigots like Nichols are taking a stand on principle, and refusing to compromise their religious beliefs, or some rancid, weaselly nonsense like that.
Hogwash. You want religious principle? Here -- here's some religious principle for you.
Now shut the hell up and go away.
AND ABOUT THAT "SEPARATION" THING ... It's not like I need to flog an argument that's long dead, but what the hell. Religious loons like Nichols (and, one suspects, like annoying Christofascists such as Canadian fetus fetishist SUZANNE) are typically vocal defenders of this thing called "the separation of church and state." Yes, by God (pun intended), they'll brook absolutely no interference or meddling from the state in the internal affairs of the church, and that's the end of that discussion.
On the other hand (and I'm sure you figured out where this is going by now), these people who are ferocious defenders of keeping the state out of the business of the church are the same people who have no problem whatsoever with taking their religious beliefs and injecting them into the business of the state.
If the hypocrisy were any deeper, you'd need a freakin' stepladder just to keep breathing.
THIS PRETTY MUCH ENDS THE DISCUSSION. Everything you need to know about SSM in Saskatchewan (all emphasis added):
.
The issue of same-sex marriages came to the forefront in Saskatchewan in November when Justice Donna Wilson, in a five-page ruling, ruled the traditional definition of marriage discriminates against gay couples under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
After hearing arguments from five gay and lesbian couples who were denied marriage licences in Saskatchewan, Justice Smith wrote "The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two person to the exclusion of all others'."
Shortly afterward, provincial Justice Minister Frank Quennell stated Saskatchewan's more-than-300 marriage commissioners could not refuse to marry gay or lesbian couples, based on sexual orientation.
Any marriage commissioners opposing same-sex marriage on conscientious or religious grounds should resign, Quennell said, and about 10 including Ziola have done so.
In December the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the federal government can change the definition of marriage but also reaffirmed religious freedoms under the Charter, meaning religious officials were not required to perform same-sex marriages.
Quennell, however, said that because marriage commissioners acted for the province and were not religious officials, they couldn't discriminate against same-sex marriages
I think we're done here, don't you?
