Sunday, January 16, 2011

Turmoil In All Directions

James Laxer's son wants to bust up the Ontario NDP! Go for it, kid! What that party needs is more ideological purity!

Meanwhile, MP Scott Reid and MPP Randy Hillier decide they need to bash gays two provinces over:

Reid continued, “I believe the court has it backwards: The right of that marriage commissioner to refuse to violate his personal moral beliefs is more important than the right of one gay couple to demand to be married by that particular marriage commissioner. Another marriage commissioner who would be willing to perform the ceremony could be handily found.”

Ontario currently allows a marriage commissioner to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage for religious reasons but critics worry that rulings like this one could set a dangerous precedent.

“This is not a matter of religion, but a case of the courts intrusion over one’s moral conscience, and their unjust & unmitigated failure to protect an individual’s freedom in its imposition of a collective tolerance.” Hillier stated, once again the courts have demonstrated a lack of deference to elected democracy, said Hillier.

As for the point made in Reid's 2nd paragraph, its worth quoting the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals decision on the matter (where the Toronto/Ontario method of accommodation is referred to as a "single entry point" system):

[89] Before moving to that point, however, I note that the constitutional validity of any “single entry point” system would need to be assessed in light of all of the relevant facts pertaining to it and with reference to the specific features of the proposed system. The assessment that, in broad terms, a single entry point model would be less restrictive of s. 15(1) rights than the Options is not necessarily a determination that any such system would ultimately pass
full constitutional muster.

...which is to say that if the Ontario system were to be met with a constitutional challenge, it might fail.

In any case, IMHO if your religious beliefs don't allow you to do your government job, then feel free to quit and do something else.


Christian said...

“This is not a matter of religion, but a case of the courts intrusion over one’s moral conscience...

Nonsense. What would be the moral objection, aside from the commissioner's religious beliefs?

Anyway, I couldn't agree more:

In any case, IMHO if your religious beliefs don't allow you to do your government job, then feel free to quit and do something else.

Gayle said...

I am certainly no expert on religion, but Ido not understand a marriage commissioner who is OK with civil marriage as opposed to a Church marriage, but not OK with a gay marriage?
I always thought that Christians at least had to be married in a church for that marriage to be valid in the eyes of said church.

Prairie Kid said...

So if a Catholic and a non Catholic go see the priest before getting married and the non Catholic says they don't want to join the Catholic church and the priest refuses to marry them, is the priest breaking the law? Why doesn't the couple go to another church to get married? And why doesn't the gay couple in Saskatchewan see another marriage commissioner?

Mark Francis said...

How can you have a religious objection over a civil marriage?

What's next? Accommodating racism? Sexism?

MP Scott Reid and MPP Randy Hillier are reading the Charter backwards: the government and its agents are not granted rights and freedoms in the face of the public, its the public who have rights and freedoms when dealing with government. Their hilarious interpretation would have agents and employees of the government having more rights than the public the Charter is there to protect.

Gene Rayburn said...

Simple PK, the priest is a member of the Catholic church, the civil servant is a public employee. One is a civil marriage one is a church marriage. The priest is not an employee of the government and does not perform nor is required by the church to perform a marriage against the doctrines of that church. The religious views of the civil servant, do not come into play as this is a civil service, not a religious one.

That's the difference PK. Do try to keep up

thwap said...

How about a Judge who refuses to award custody of children in a divorce to a woman because the man should be the head of the household?

And this was all decided years ago when a postal-worker who did not want to process mail they believed came from a pyramid-scheme was told that they did not have right to make those decisions.

Michael Laxer said...

Love your post...from me to questions about gay rights. A typical Liberal...can't get the head out of the ass to see where you are exactly on the political spectrum, or to take anything seriously. What would one expect from a group of folks who thought an American would deliver them government!
The NDP does not need ideological purity, because kinda like you junior, it lacks ideology. And integrity.
That whole "non-ideological" shit played out well for Smitherman didn't it?
Get ready to feel a lot less arrogant when you lose the next election...and thanks to your desire to buy into the whole system, your right wing bullshit will deliver us the government you claim to dread.
Maybe Dalton can sign a few golf balls. A couple dollars here or there can't hurt the most corrupt party in Canadian history.
In case you think a Democratic Socialist Party would be aimed at the NDP...sorry son, it is aimed at you. Make fun all you want, but it is your viewpoint we actually oppose.

Michael Laxer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Laxer said...

BTW...what you are linking to is a title ripped off by a one would expect...
Take a look folks...
That is my article from July.
Now your Liberal link
Liberal rip off artist article from a couple days ago!
You folks can't even think for yourselves when you try!

Shiner said...

... Is Michael Laxner a pseudonym for Jared Loughner??? Illiterate nutter.

Michael Laxer said...

Shiner...I love it! Hey come on, I cna't have a Rob Ford out burst at 1 a.m.? Only right wingers are allowed that luxury?

firebrand said...

Shiner, Laxer's post may be a rant but it's not "illiterate".

Secondly, if you're going to accuse someone of being illiterate it's best not to have spelling mistakes in your post when you do it.

Jerome Bastien said...

Wow, both "Liberal Scarf" and Michael Laxer thought of ripping off the same song's lyrics! How shocking.

Anyways, its fun to see a true believer like Michael Laxer.