RE: marriage (was: Another query to George and comments to Janice)

>>> "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <ttveiv@mts.net> 06/09/06 3:24 PM >>>writes:

As an aside, somebody asked if same sex marriage would affect me
adversely.
The answer is, no, not yet, but I know of people who had to turn in their
licence to perform civil marriages because they would not perform same-sex
marriages in my Manitoba. There has also been a case where a Catholic
organization (Knights of Columbus) was sued because they would not rent
their hall out to a same-sex union affair. They had initially agreed to
rent their facilities, not knowing that the reception would be for a
same-sex couple. I wonder how long it will be before churches that will
not
conduct same-sex marriages will lose their tax exempt status. I am aware
of
one congregation [in Ontario] that will only marry couples if at least one
of the couple is a member in good standing of that congregation, just to
avoid any possibility of a law suit if they refuse to marry a same-sex
couple.

Ted adds:
This is a genuine concern, quite genuine. The relevant precedent here (let
the attorneys please correct me if I am mistaken) is the "Bob Jones
University" case many years ago, in which the fed govt took away a tax
exemption from a college that had a religious policy against "interracial"
dating and marriage. I would be the very last person to defend the
college's policy, but I believed at the time and still believe now that what
the court ruled in that case was wrong. My recollection is that, if there
was an overriding reason why the state should oppose a particular
policy/belief of a religious institution, then they could say that that
particular religion was less equal than others. I do see this as a very
real danger, relative to the same-sex marriage issue. If current laws about
discrimination are extended/interpreted to mean that someone's civil rights
are being violated when a church refuses to recognize a marriage (and
frankly, not just for this particular reason), then religious freedom is not
worth the paper that the first amendment is written on.

We might as well say, that pacifist churches cannot oppose the draft, esp
in wartime; that they cannot oppose a particular military action or any
military action. That is the most serious part of the problem here, as I
see it, even though other parts are also serious.

It is already true in parts of Europe, that religious speech on this
particular issue is legally restricted. Is this not so? Has not the state
become the final aribiter of truth for some European churches? Now there is
no First Amendment in Europe, as far as I know. Hence, we must never allow
our First Amendment to be abused in this way.

Ted
Received on Fri Jun 9 15:46:08 2006