This is an interesting story of a South Carolina minister who has refused to continue to perform civil marriages for his state.
Rev. Joe Hoffman says:
When I sign that piece of paper for marriage, as an agent of the state, I give (heterosexual couples) about 1,100 rights and privileges that gay and lesbian couples do not get,” Hoffman said. “I believe in equal rights for all people. As a minister, I was participating in a system that was unjust.”
Which brings me to the question - how many rights and privileges has Bill C-38 granted gay and lesbian couples in Canada that they didn’t have before?
Published 2 years, 9 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
- Good comment
- Right-wing Christian conservatives taking over party!!
- In God's Cross-hairs
- Money, spam and burnout
- The tide of apathy
- What support Instapundit?
- Is religion playing a role in the 2008 federal election?
- Squeezing through the legal loopholes - Charities and politics
- US Evangelicals and Canadian politics
- The God Gap
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Talk to Richard and Kim over at Connexions. I think they had this topic up at their site explaining all of the rights (I call privileges) regarding this issue. Again there are other legal ways to address the problems that I mentioned over at their site. Might want to take a look. Again, the term marriage or even civil union is a problem in relation to the original with regard to marriage. I could bring up the marriage between a man and two women in Belgium, etc. At what point do we draw the line and why change the line in the first place? (rhetorical)
When talking about single issue politics I know many who are that with regards to the War in Iraq, both sides on abortion, taxes, etc. I think we can find that no one party or side has sole claim to the term or title of “single issue” when it comes to politics. Nor one party or side has a majority when it comes to being “single issue”.
I will see what connexions is saying, thanks.
I’m referring to Canada both federally and provincially.
This NC minister identified 1100 in his state.
Provinces handle marriage - so what is the difference in BC versus NS?
The term ’single issue politics’ essentially refers to voter blocks that are concerned with one issue such as education taxes or health care. There is usually no larger picture for them, although there certainly might be for the candidate they elect that make them a promise.
I agree but your post implied the “single voter” category in a political way by emphesizing the particular issue of the post. The left is always quick to point out “so-called single voter” but when you do the research you find those who say “single voter” are themselves single voter and thereby making it a double standard. If you get my drift. Some have said the majority of the right are single voter but this is just a flat overgeneralzation in light of the facts. The facts are the single voter category can not be used in a majority way for one party or the other and when one uses the term for one party and not the other it begs the question with regard to bias and/or overgeneralzation or whatever appropriate term you can use depending on the level the individual placed with regard to the use of “single issue” erroneously on a particular group.
Huh?
Sorry, dh, you completely lost me in that last sentence.
1) The fact is no one party holds a majority of people who are single issue
2)When one falsely accuses a party of being single issue it begs the question with regard to the bias and/or overgeneralization or any other appropriate term of the one doing the accusing.
The reason I brought this up is that everyone is quick to point out single issue politics of the right but the term can be placed equally to both sides and no one group has a majority of people in it who are single issue.
Sorry for thr confusion portrayed by me. I should have made that last sentence two. Does this help?
Yep. And for the record, as a person who has lately been accused of being on the ‘religious left’, I think you’re right.
In fact, I wish we could get rid of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ altogether. They imply that there are only two ways of seeing issues, that religious conservatives are also political conservatives, that religious liberals are also political socialists etc. etc.
Reality is far more messy than that. I think it would be good to have a moratorium on the terms ‘keft’ and ‘right’ altogether.
I wasn’t referring to the term right and left for they do have a place in certain non harsh cases. However, when one uses “single issue” it seems to always be directed to the right. Why is that when I could point out “single issue” political people from the left? To me single issue is more harsh than the terms left and right. Maybe one needs to look at the definitions of the terms religious, conservatives, socialists and determine where they are appropriately? Maybe one will find that the category is appropriate as long as it is not harsh? For some socialist might be appropriate under the definition of socialist and when looked at from an unbiased standpoint as well? One mustn’t deny reality and at the same time one mustn’t project unreality. It is a balance between the two.
dh… (reference your first comment) I don’t have a problem calling them priviliges - on the condition that we recognize that their they are priviliges for heterosexual married couples as well.
Bene… it really does change from province to province. I’m sure it wouldn’t be close to the the 1100 mentioned by the NC minister. You might want to check and see what research the folks at equalmarriage.ca have done on the question.
dh - “single issue” is often used for those on the “left”, by those on the “right”, as well as vice-versa. Sometimes its put in terms of, “don’t those envrionmentalists see anything except the trees?”
I’m really finding that lables are pretty darned useless, even when we’ve agreed on a definition prior to the discussion.
Most Canadians who would be considered “right” in Canada, would still be “centre to center-left” in the US.
Its all contextual and - unless we agree on the context - not a helpful label.
blessings & peace - Richard B.
Well the Bible refers to them as a right for heterosexuals but doesn’t refer to them as a right for homosexuals. I take the Bible not man when it comes to issues like this.
Also, I agree with what you say on labels but those who say they don’t agree with labels continue to label certain people. Many on the left, from my experience, don’t like labels but then in discussion they continue to use labels. So do you gays like labels or not or do you pick and choose when it is appropriate which is an oxymoron. From my experience the double standards abound when it comes to the use of labels from the left, from my experience.
Ok, dh… once again we come to an impasse.
The laws of the land are - at least in Canada, thank God - not defined by any one religious group. They are defined by the citizens (some of the Christian faith, some of other faiths, and some with no faith tradition at all), through the legislature, and kept watch over by the courts.
If a Christian church decides that it understands that God says that a same-sex couple cannot marry, then, by all means, that church should be able to not marry such a couple. In Canada, that right is enshrined in the “Charter of Rights and Freeedoms”.
But if the legislature and courts decide that same-sex marriage part of the “rights” of the land, then - in a secular context - that’s the language we should be using.
Now… if we want to talk about it from a religious - specifically one of the Christian - perspectives, we might very well change our language. (eg. We don’t tend to talk about “covenant” in the secular word - rather we use words like “contract”.)
—-
I would invite you to get specific about the “labels” commetary, dh.
I can only speak to *my* actions… and I can tell you, I do my hardest to describe what I see, rather than use a label - because I believe that labels work to dehumanize the other.
Some labels are truly descriptive - like - “Richard is Rowan’s Daddy”. But, even there, the label only describes one part of who I am.
When someone labels me “left” or “liberal”, or for that matter “right wing” or “war monger” - then they are no longer dealing with me, but with a caricature of me.
I refuse to caricature people. As beings created by God, they have an innate right to be valued for who they are - not who I want to paint them to be.
And… dh… from my experience the double standards abound when it comest ot eh use of labels from *people*… no matter what their religious or political leanding.
Blessings and peace - Richard B.
But don’t we, as citizens of a country who happen to be Christians, have a right to be upset and to try to change the law or at least voice our concern for the law rather than say “oh well it is secular so I can’t do anything about it”? Shouldn’t people also have the right to do whatever it takes within the law to address the problems of same sex marriage with the legislature and the courts?
P.S. when I use the term priviledge the law doesn’t protect priviledges but rights. Hense my response and belief that it shouldn’t be a right based on the reasons I stated earlier.
Also the laws are not definied by one religious group but by a majority of people who feel the way they do. As you can see in the US people have problems with same sex marriage. Our citizens, even if they are not religious, value the Judeo-Christian ethic. What is so wrong with that. Many of the laws that are “so-called secular” are in fact founded on that as well. Why deny that reality?
Those Christians who do not believe in a specific law have exactly the same voice as those of other faith traditions (or no faith tradition) - as a citizen, to speak what they believe needs to be said… to gather with others who feel the same way… to protest… to challenge the government.
But they should have no more right than any other citizen… whether or not that citizen agrees or disagrees with them.
Surely, people should have the ability to share their perceptions of the problems with same-sex marriage. I believe that I have the responsibility, as a citizen, to raise my perceived concerns about a whole bunch of things. (Just ask my Member of Parliament and Member of Provincial Parliament how many letters they’ve received from me… on a variety of subjects.
) I’m still wondering what they thought of my suggestion of turning all marriages in Canada - opposite or same-sex - into “civil unions” and backdating it to the oldest living married couple.
So - take it to the courts and the legislatures - but know that there will be others who fairly and legally stand in opposition… and know that if your viewpoint wins the day, those who stand in opposition have the same right to do what you were doing the day before.
“Also the laws are not definied by one religious group but by a majority of people who feel the way they do. As you can see in the US people have problems with same sex marriage. ”
There are people in Canada who have problems with it as well. However, our national legislature, who were elected by the people, made a decision to change the definition of marriage. We now have a new government, who have decided to bring the question back. So, the citizens on all sides of the question will have to gear up to help their MPs understand their concerns and hopes. And the MPs will vote… and there will be some people who will have problems with what they decide, no matter what the decision will be.
“Our citizens, even if they are not religious, value the Judeo-Christian ethic.”
Really? All of them? And they all agree on what that ethic is? Wow!
dh - I self-define as a follower of Christ… and I’m not sure if I would value the total “Judeao-Christian ethic”. I guess it would depend on who is defining that that ethic is.
“What is so wrong with that. Many of the laws that are “so-called secular” are in fact founded on that as well. Why deny that reality?”
Founded on it, sure. But “founded” doesn’t mean “forever bonded to”! If the laws of the land are created by the legislators, on behalf of the people, and the people are no longer “Judaeo-Christian” - or no longer “Judaeo-Christian” in the ways that the founders were… then those laws are going to change.
Either that, or the laws aren’t really of the people - but of the book.
Blessings and peace - Richard B.
When I say those who are not religious value the Judeo-Christian ethic I was meaning that the majority as that is what determines the laws. To say it is the voice of only one religious is just off in light of the many non-Christian people who support many of the laws that happen to be Judeo-Christian. If the laws happen to change then why force or try to silence people who feel that those laws shouldn’t change? I have a problem with people being upset about people being upset about laws changing. To label from your standpoint “a lack of change in laws” as being the voice of only one group or religious is a total overgeneralization and shows that you don’t totally practice what you preach when it comes to labels. Even if the majority want same-sex marriage in Canada to label the opposite as totally religious is a total overgenerlaization. I could mention tons of non-religious people who don’t support abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. This is the type of double standard I’m talking about.
If I don’t like the laws changing I have a right to state what I feel and to try to change or prevent changing laws that go against those beliefs and I deserve to not be labeled in that behavior when the facts point otherwise. This is the picking and choosing that I’m talking about.
Guys, perhaps ‘labelling’ is not a helpful ‘label’ for what we’re talking about here. What we probably mean is ‘categorising’ or ‘typecasting’.
For instance, on my own blog I have voiced praise for Stephen Lewis, spoken out about poverty and injustice and that sort of stuff. This has led to at least one blogger (http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/) labelling me as part of the ‘Religious Left’ (and listing me as such on his blogroll). Now in fact I also believe every article of the Apostles’ Creed, oppose abortion on demand, and am not at all comfortable with same-sex marriage, and in my own Anglican diocese I am seen as something of a ‘conservative’!
So I resent people who put me in a category and then assume they know what I’m going to say or think on any given subject. I like the idea behind Brian McLaren’s title ‘A New Kind of Christian’. Categories from the past (right/left, conservative/liberal, protestant/catholic) are no longer adequate to describe the complex world we live in. When I protest against ‘labeling’, that’s what I’m protesting against.
And yes, dh, I will freely admit that I don’t always practice what I preach (actually I’m not ‘preaching’ here, just musing!). So by all means call me on it if you see it in anything I say.
Ok - so the majority determine the laws.
Some of those laws have a Judaeo-Christian heritage.
Some of the people who support those laws have a Judaeo-Christian hertiage.
Some don’t.
So what?
“To say it is the voice of only one religious is just off in light of the many non-Christian people who support many of the laws that happen to be Judeo-Christian.”
Where did I say that, dh?
“If the laws happen to change then why force or try to silence people who feel that those laws shouldn’t change?”
Re-read my comment, dh. Nowhere did I suggest that people should be silenced.
“To label from your standpoint “a lack of change in laws” as being the voice of only one group or religious is a total overgeneralization and shows that you don’t totally practice what you preach when it comes to labels.”
Sorry, dh - but I’m not understanding what you’re saying here. Where have I said that it is the “voice of only one group”? Where am I labeling?
“Even if the majority want same-sex marriage in Canada to label the opposite as totally religious is a total overgenerlaization.”
Ummm… dh… you’re not reading everything. My comment, “Those Christians who do not believe in a specific law have exactly the same voice as those of other faith traditions (or no faith tradition) - as a citizen, to speak what they believe needs to be said… to gather with others who feel the same way… to protest… to challenge the government.”,/i> was in response to your statement, “But don’t we, as citizens of a country who happen to be Christians, have a right to be upset and to try to change the law or at least voice our concern for the law rather than say “oh well it is secular so I can’t do anything about it”?” You were talking about Christians, so I responded about Christians.
“If I don’t like the laws changing I have a right to state what I feel and to try to change or prevent changing laws that go against those beliefs…”
Of course you do! That’s what I wrote in my last comment!
“…and I deserve to not be labeled in that behavior when the facts point otherwise. This is the picking and choosing that I’m talking about.”
Now you’re reading into what I’ve written, dh. In none of my comments - here or elsewhere - have I labeled you anything. I have argued your points - fairly, competently, and with a great deal of respect.
dh - If you can show me a label that I have placed on you - or Bene - or someone else reading here - I will apologize. Having said that, I’ve just finished reading through all of my comments here three times, and cannot find anything that fits the accusation.
It is, slowly but surely, becoming extremely difficult to *discuss* anything with you, dh.
Blessings and peace - Richard B.
Tim, I respect what you are saying here. You are the minority in that I would consider you not among those I was mentioning with regard to waffling, double standard and the like. My stance is why be scared away from a label if in fact on a mjority of issues you are that label? At the same time, why say you don’t prefer labels if on a majority of issues you happen to be on a particular side? Does that make sense? Based on what you stated I wouldn’t label you a religious left or whatever. You may be to the left of me but I wouldn’t call you “left” if you get my drift. I just mentioned that from my experience there seems to be “in general” a double standard” (not from you) that comes form those who prefer no labels at all.
On a side note: Lord knows I too don’t practice what I preach but I would say that doesn’t change the standard of what is preached just because certain people don’t happen to practice it.
Ummm…. Bene… I think I left an open “italics” tag in comment #16.
:-\
Sorry about that.
b/p - Richard B.
“But if the legislature and courts decide that same-sex marriage part of the “rights” of the land, then - in a secular context - that’s the language we should be using.” Who says? Why should I be forced to use it in that context when I don’t agree with that context?
The whole context of this thread is to point out that the Bene’s label “single issue”. It more times than not seems to be always directed toward the right. When you do research you find the term “single issue” can be applied to both right and left. When you do further research from those who label the right “single issue” you find they are a “double standard” (other than Tim and a few I come across). When you find a majority of those people who don’t like or are afraid of “labels” more times than not are the ones who are in the left on a majority of issues.
Richard I reacted to this “The laws of the land are - at least in Canada, thank God - not defined by any one religious group.” Nowhere, unless your talking the middle east, is this the case even in the US and so my response was in relation to that.
dh…
My experience of using religious based language in a non-religious context - or vice-versa, using, say, the language of business in a religious context - is that it makes having a discussion much more difficult (sometimes to the point of making it impossible.)
If, as one who self-defines as Christian, I want my words to be understood in a non-Christian context, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to use the language of that context… at least until we get to a point where both the other and I understand what we mean when we use our own jargon.
So - if you will let me take away the “should” from what I wrote and put in “if we desire to be understood”, that would get closer to what I want to say.
Back to “single issue”. I’m still not getting it. I’ve listened to people define political candidates who are “Pro-Choice” as “single issue”… just as I’ve heard candidates who are “Pro-Life” as “single issue”. In my own denomination an gay man who was a candidate to be “Moderator” was defined as “single issue” on gay rights… even though his passion - which he talked alot about - was justice for the First Nations in the Indian Residential Schools issue. If he was “single issue” about anything, it was that!
Its not just the “right” that get the label “single issue”. People on the “left” do, too.
Again, I argue against the use of labels because we start to argue with what the lable represents, rather than what the person themselves is saying/doing/thinking/arguing. When we label - we take away from that person’s complete being.
Ah. I understand. I was speaking about the realities of any theocracy - countries in the mid-east, most of pre-enlightenment Europe.
dh - when I read you stating, “Well the Bible refers to them as a right for heterosexuals but doesn’t refer to them as a right for homosexuals. I take the Bible not man when it comes to issues like this.” in a discussion that is was focussed on the secular realm, what I heard you saying is that our governments should be following the dictates of the Bible in issues like this. If I mis-read what you were saying, I apologize.
Blessings and peace - Richard B.
Richard, this post lately shows some “coming together” on this that I appreciate.
You’re second and third paragraphs really were good and very well written and I can agree with to a great extent. The final paragraph I think the Bible can be a good handbook for issues like this not in a majority sense but it sure can give some guidlines that can keep us from the extreme. For example in Belgium people can marry more than one person. If we go the civil union route it waters down the whole concept of marriage and gives people wrongly an attitude of “whats the point” when the point is clear when it comes to marriage and who it pertains to (in my strong opinion one man and one woman). I see where you are coming from on this and I hope you see where I do as well.
I guess from my experience those who are afraid of labels are those who are from the left which I don’t understand if one understands ones stance on a number of issues. When I talk to someone I like to get an idea first of where they come from so I won’t be surprised. I dislike being surprised within a conversation. For me it doesn’t dehumanize but helps me understand where they come from. Does that make sense?
I’ll fix the tag Richard, not a problem.:^)
I did a prelim search at the site you mentioned…it’s difficult to navigate and unfortunately I don’t have the time to dig up the stats. It makes sense rights and priviledges would vary from province to province.
Thanks, Bene.
Navigation of that site is truly painful. I’ll see what I’ve got in my files for you.
b/p - Richard B.
I penned a response to you/Hoffman, Bene. You can find it here.