Occasionally an editorial pops up that speaks common sense.
On the local news tonight a minister in the region had his five minutes of fame.
I think he was pentecostal, his church is called Glad Tidings, but I wasn’t paying attention to the top of the piece. He has decided not to perform any more weddings. The piece had the obligatory reaction. There were no comments from any parishoners. They aren’t licenced to do a marriage ceremony, he is, so I guess it’s his choice.
Back to the editorial.
We honestly cannot understand the complaining from some members of the gay community over the Klein government’s talk about protecting clergy from having to perform gay marriages.
Because religious officials already have the right to refuse to perform weddings. A Catholic priest would not, for instance, be legally compelled to wed a Jewish couple, should that couple insist for whatever reason that it wanted a Catholic ceremony. Two Muslims would be refused their request to be wed in an evangelical Christian church. And, no doubt, there are not a lot of Hindus celebrating their nuptials in synagogues.
And even within a religious denomination, pastors and priests can still refuse to marry a couple if, say, the couple was not following the doctrines of the church by living together and engaging in premarital sex. And some churches won’t marry anyone who has been divorced.
The reason this op ed shows some common sense is because it doesn’t fudge on the definition of rights.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that rights are guaranteed “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
And when rights conflict, it’s the duty of the government to balance the rights as best as possible, not let one right trample over another. Gays now have the right to marry. It does not mean that gays have the right to demand that any and every church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other religious building be available to them to wed in - because that would, indeed, give them special rights unavailable to the rest of the population.
Not to mention that to do so would result in the gay community being guilty of the same political sin that Wilson believes the churches are committing, and that’s imposing their rights to the point of trampling on the rights of others.
There are many churches that will marry gay couples. That more than allows gays to exercise their right to wed. Clergy who don’t want to perform gay marriages should be allowed to refuse.
The federal legislation wasn’t a surprise. Church denominations and various religions have been collectively wrestling with the tough questions for years. Church denominations and religions understand there are going to be some lawsuits coming down the pipe. The government is aware of that also.
I think the gay community does itself and it’s members a great disservice if it’s spokespeople fail to understand that ministers are individuals that have to make decisions they and their larger community can live with.
One thing I think I’ve come to believe as a journalist is that sometimes activists are so busy being activists they don’t know when to put the brakes on.
You are not in communion
MP’s go through a back lash when the Catholic Church refuses them communion. I’m protestant. I know when I go to mass I can’t take communion, it’s a belief I can respect. Every once in awhile I need to be reminded of how personally and spiritually devestating this decision by a bishop can be for a parishoner.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
- Alberta Christian group launches Human Rights complaint against provincial Tories
- Christian group plans Human Rights complaint, Muslim group withdraws one
- Alberta minister and political activist win in hate speech tribunal
- Islamic group drops complaint against former magazine
- Calgary Alberta
- Evangelicals in US Politics
- Hanta-virus
- Single issue politics
- Churches in Alabama
- Streaming audio of 40-50's sacred music
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Good stuff.
I was, however, under the impression Bill C-38 actually mentions religious rights.
This, as far as I can tell, is the text of the Bill. Note this: “3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.”
Do I misunderstand how this fits in with the Bill?
Hmmm…for some reason my link HTML didn’t work. Here is what I think is the text of the Bill:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38-4E.html
It does fit the bill.
And that is part of the reason it went to the Supreme Court.
Of course ministers and religious leaders are free to refuse.
The Supreme Court went out of it’s way to make that clear because it was a major concern.
Most of us don’t sit down and read Supreme Court decisions.:^)
Again, I see activists (not a whole movement or community) not knowing when to put the brakes on, or seeing social backlash or fallout when they have fought long or hard.
What is interesting about individual leaders, churches and religions potentially being taken to lower court is that the persons doing the challenging have the right. As do religions and leaders to refuse to perform marriages. These potential cases are charter challenges. Ironic.
The province of Alberta (or any other province) also has the right to opt out of the marriage business if that is what they want to do.
The HTML is disabled because of spam, thanks for linking to the Charter.
Clause 2…
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
You are correct. The Charter addresses religious freedom first. In the grand scheme of this country, the Charter is a young idea (1989) - so challenges are expected and understandable.
I agree with the editorial.
Good editorial. And from a Pentecostal. A sane voice. Wow. Good stuff. But I wish he would ask other Christians to stop the fearmongering: “The Gay are going after church’s tax exemption status!”
And BOO to those priests and bishops denying communion to MPs who voted for the SSM bill. Even if they believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, the sacrament is not a reward for good moral behaviour, it is the gift of forgiveness and newness of life. As a pastor, I couldn’t imagine denying ANYONE communion.
Furthermore, what other sins are the RC bishops going to crack down on? Why is SSM being singled out as a special sin demanding punitive measures?
Heartbreaking.
kgp
Actually, Kevin, a couple of weeks ago I read an interview with/article about one gay activist who’s next goal is the charitable status of churches. It’s a real idea, but it’s hard to say how many are really interested in pursuing that.
Just so it doesn’t sound like I grabbed that article out of thin air, I read it in the National Post, but I couldn’t tell you the exact date.
Yeah, Kevin Bourassa had been making threats. It won’t go anywhere. I don’t really blame him. I’d feel like Christians were the enemy too if I were a secular gay man trying to secure my rights.
kgp
As much as I have supported gay rights, I do find it concerning that some activists want governments to intervene in church matters.
I disagree strongly with churches that would deny membership to gays, but I believe their legal right to do exactly that must be preserved. Freedom of religion is a precious thing.
I’m also against hate speech laws, except such speech as would be intended soley to incite to violence or riot. In the U.S. there are already laws that cover “fighting words.” I think it is horrible and offensive some of the language that anti-gay rights people use against gays. But the solution is not restriction on speech, it is witnessing to the Gospel of Christ.
I don’t like it when preachers use the “put homosexuals to death” Scripture apart from any Christian context. But I’m distrubed at the idea that anyone could be arrested for reading any portion of Scripture.
I don’t agree with the denying of communion to politicians on the basis of their votes, but I support the legal right of the Catholic or other churches to do just that.
I think the Gospel of Christ is combination of care and compassion as well as “go and sin no more”. If ever the “go and sin no more” is stronger than the compassion it is wrong. If ever the compassion (the area that is actually accomodation)is stronger that the “go and sin no more” that is equally as wrong. It is a balance and I feel people on both sides of the issue (personally a minority on the “go and sin no more” and a majority among the “compassion/accomodation”) are at fault. Sometimes accomodation is confused with compassion and sometimes condemnation is confused with compassion. If you get my drift.
I cannot speak to the anguish of being denied communion, it must be devastating. Still, our peoples and cultures and more importantly our faith, accept punishment as a legitimate form of censor and correction.
In of itself, the action on the part of the community is righteous, providing the sin is serious and efforts have been made to effect reconcilliation and correction.
Great point Paul Johnston. I agree.